The Rev Angus MacLeay (St Nicholas Church, Sevenoaks, Kent) used passages in the Bible to justify women playing a submissive role in local church life. He urged women to “submit to their husbands in everything”.
Isn’t the most remarkable facet of the below article from the Telegraph, the fact that this makes national news?
In a leaflet issued to parishoners, the Rev Angus MacLeay used passages in the Bible to justify women playing a submissive role in local church life. He urged women to “submit to their husbands in everything”.
Mr MacLeay, a member of the General Synod, is opposed to the appointment of women bishops. He has campaigned vociferously for Reform, an Evangelical group that seeks to reform the Church of England “according to the Holy Scriptures”.
The leaflet he issued It says at one point: “Wives are to submit to their husbands in everything in recognition of the fact that husbands are head of the family as Christ is head of the church.
“This is the way God has ordered their relationships with each other and Christian marriage cannot function well without it.”
In a section called `More difficult passages to consider’, it continues:
“It would seem that women should remain silent….if their questions could legitimately be answered by their husbands at home.”
This is also reported in the Mail, Guardian, Mirror and elsewhere.
In this day and age of loudly trumpeted increasing secularism, I find it remarkable that there is still a slight media obsession with the views sounded from the pulpit, especially if those views are perceived to be archaic or out of sync with the prevailing spirit of the age, of course.
If you have stumbled onto this blog and are not a Christian, get yourself a hot drink, pull up a comfy chair and then tuck into the following article written by one of the best in the business:- All Of Grace by Charles Spurgeon
Tags: Church Life, Media
February 12th, 2010 at 8:29 pm
Good for him! The Rev’d Angus MacLeay is merely keeping strictly in line with New Testament teaching concerning order within the church and the home.
I think, however, that it should equally be emphasised that husbands should be prepared to, so love their wives as to be willing to lay down their lives for them. Just as Christ was prepared to lay down His life for His future bride: the church!
It’s quite amazing how divergent the average parish church has become in relation with basic New Testament teaching! Yes, and all, surely, so as to try and attract feminists, ‘gays’ and even secuilarists in to its rapidly dwindling pews?
It was either Marx or Lenin who offered potential followers nothing but blood, sweat and tears; and the masses in Russia responded!
Compromise and comfort is, surely, not the cry of the New Testament but rather conversion through being challanged by Calvary? Yes, and then a continuing daily cross to follow!
Not only do churches suffer, but so do children and family life, when scripturally based order is replaced by secularist concepts of equality.
Anglicanism in the UK is nearer than ever in apponting a first woman bishop. It had already tried to ordain an openly practising ‘gay’ to the Welsh diocese of Bangor! Its advocates argue for ‘equality rights’ (but don’t they realise that the sexes are not equal – never have been – but are wonderfully complementary?)
I wonder when it will transpire – for their equalities sake! = that they’ll endeavour to consecrate a practising transvestite?
February 12th, 2010 at 9:07 pm
Rev Pastor James Thompson says:
“It was either Marx or Lenin who offered potential followers nothing but blood, sweat and tears; and the masses in Russia responded!”
Actually it was Winston Churchill calling the British to arms against the Nazis at the start of WWII, which makes your post look a bit silly. And, incidentally, congregations may dwindle, but pews cannot. There’s a lot to be said for the idea that careless writing demonstrates careless attitudes. Very careless. Look to yourself before you suggest women be silent.
Your whole tone seems un-Christian. Quite feminine, though, in its style of malice.
If we must follow scriptural example then presumably all church leaders should be Jewish? If the argument is that as none of the disciples was a woman then no church leader can be a woman, you do appreciate that none of the disciplies was in a wheelchair, or Chinese, or Native American, or Russian… I could go on, but I expect you can see my point.
February 13th, 2010 at 10:36 am
Rev Angus proves that the most dangerous people are those who believe that they are following the word of GOD, when in reality they are distorting Bible texts to serve their hate driven repressive agendas. How much blood has been shed in the name of Christ? How many have been tortured, had their lives ruined and their potential stunted by those who believe they have God behind them?
February 13th, 2010 at 11:48 am
Rev Angus has taken complementarianism pass its limits and is on par with Mark Driscoll.
I do wonder how many of Rev Angus MacLeay female congregants actually heckle him during his sermon? or how many of them were a raucous rable laughing and chatting during the services?
We are speaking of Sevenoaks here, middle england at it’s finest, not Corinth in the 1st Century. No wonder he has upset so many of his flock.
It does beg the question, as to has the Rev been watching far too much God TV? or Mark Driscoll?
February 13th, 2010 at 2:15 pm
I think it’s great – well done McLeay ! Anybody causing division & splits in the church is OK in my book. Most religions see women as goods,and chattels and lesser mortals who should do as they are told – Atheists rejoice and more power to the Reverends holy elbow – hilarious, doing our job for us !
February 13th, 2010 at 5:13 pm
As an ex County Councillor who represented Sevenoaks and someone who used to attend St. Nicholas before moving to the IOW, I am embarrassed that the vicar should show his ignorance of the Bible.
If he had read his scriptures thoroughly he would have been aware that married women in Biblical times were encouraged to be leaders
“She provides food for her family and portions for her servant girls. She considers a field and buys it; out of her earnings she plants a vineyard…..she sees that her trading is profitable…..she is clothed with strength and dignity….(Proverbs 31: 15-19) Yes, women ran their own businesses, they were not mindless individuals under the thumb of their husbands. Christ himself admired women with spirit and leadership skills – those around him were not shrinking violets!
The fact is that many marital breakups are a result of the selfishness of the husband and lack of consideration towards his wife – surveys have shown this for some time. Women are no longer chattels and can walk away from a bad marriage as many are highly intelligent and able to earn a very good salary on their own. A woman on her own who is happy with children is a much healthier situation to be in, than a miserable woman who stays with her selfish husband “for the childrens sake” It is never better to stay together in those circumstances, as the children are affected by the misery of the bad atmosphere and the rows.
February 13th, 2010 at 5:54 pm
Rev MacLeay
I fully support your affirmation of Bible teashing. You have mentioned all the relevant Bible texts which quite clealy tell what is required of women. Women should trust scripture and follow God’s order in relationships. This is a voluntary decision on the part of women and is with the understanding that a husband must love his wife as himself. It is about time the truth of the revealed word of God is believed and not some false interpition to placate feminism and social convenience. In the first chapters of Genesis; the only time when everything was perfect – God made man in his image, later making woman; from man as a helper. Look at the punishments dealt out by God and the reasons given.
When did God change his plan? The New Testanent does no say so. Why do we?
Men and Women stand up and be counted. Speak the truth about God’s word. Do not let error go unchallenged.
Congratulations on speaking the truth.
February 13th, 2010 at 6:49 pm
The Bible is not the word of God. The Bible is a book written by man.
February 13th, 2010 at 8:02 pm
The reason Macleay and Oden and the other men at St Nicholas’ chruch get away with it it that the church is a major gatepkeeper to two popular so-called ‘faith’ schools, Lady Boswell”s primary school and Bennett MEmorial ‘comprehensive’ school. Well done- to the small number of women at St Nicholas who have finally stood up to Macleay and Oden, and look forward to the Christian hatred you are about to enjoy for not believing the right things. Still you wont have to spend eternity with them with you?
February 13th, 2010 at 9:05 pm
This is the same tripe Mike Breen of The Order of Mission and 3D Ministries spreads. Does anyone know of a connection?
February 13th, 2010 at 10:21 pm
Sophie, I was fully aware that Churchill used similar words during World War Two. Indeed, I was involved in it, long I sense, before you were born!
You also show further sarcasm when I metaphorically speak – O’ beg your pardon! write – no print! So sorry: type? – of pews shrinking rather than congregations.
Well, if this as far as you have evolved since your ‘conversion’ then I sense that you are no longer ‘a babe in Christ’, but very sadly a stinted spiritual pigmy. Nevertheless, I wish you well as ‘deep down’ I sense I must have touched some very delicate spot to have received such an uncharitable reply.
Sophie, as the Americans used to say: ‘May The Lord Bless You Real Good!’ Yes, and I really do mean it.
February 14th, 2010 at 8:21 am
I was very pleased to read of the stand for the Holy Scriptures
made by Rev Macleay and the clergy at St Nicholas, Sevenoaks.
When our nation overturns the order which God has given in His word i.e. the Marriage bond of one man and one woman and
misplaces the role of each, it is ripe for judgment. Surely this nation of the United Kingdom has done this ? Reformation must begin in the church and therefore I commend this minister and his curate.
All scriture is given by inspiration of God 2 Timothy 3 v 6
February 14th, 2010 at 10:52 am
Pastor Thompson: Are you for real? Surely there is room in Christian doctrine to encompass humankind’s evolution and scientific enlightenment? To think that today women should be playing a submissive role in Church life is surely to deny the growth of humankind’s understanding, and of all of humankind’s (God given?) growing capabilities.
You are free to hold any docrinal view you like in private, but once you put this in the public domain you will surely incur the wrath of the majority of enlightened people.
I am an atheist, but I am trying to understand what makes people believe in God, and some will recall various other posts I have made as I try to deepen my knowledge of the attractions of this faith. Posts like yours are like a slap in the face, and make me seriously wonder why I bother. Please someone tell me that Pastor Thompson’s view is not mainstream…
February 14th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
I’m going to be honest with you Jim, as you have been so honest with me. From the inside, I personally wouldn’t be able to confirm for sure that these views are not mainstream.
Depending on what circles in Christianity you move with, will obviously impact the degree to which these views would be considered mainstream.
The apostle Paul, in his letters, most often wrote to churches that had very specific and urgent problems that needed addressing. And so we MUST always read the Bible in context, which many forget to do and therefore can become distorted in their thinking.
It seems to me that humans have the greatest difficulty in walking the middle path and have a tendency to be quite polar in their thinking and this goes for any group.
But don’t let this put you off your worthy quest. I for one am learning a great deal from you also.
February 14th, 2010 at 12:26 pm
By the way this “news” has just gone international:-
U.K. Church Leader: ‘Wives, Submit to Your Husbands’
February 14th, 2010 at 2:04 pm
The question must be asked, Webmaster. What is a Biblical Christian ? This is the real issue. God’s truth is not relative, it is absolute and His Word is inspired as i previously stated.
The church and society needs to get back to basics. The prophet Jeremiah wrote in ch 6 v 16 ‘Thus saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls’
The real problem in the church is that the law of God is no longer believed to be relevant for today’ culture. God inerrant word supercedes culture and Praise God is relevant for all our needs. Romans 1 v 16
February 14th, 2010 at 3:16 pm
If the Bible is just the words of men, those who object to the Rev. Macleay’s comments are absolutely right. Times move on and so should our religious beliefs.
However, if the Bible is as it claims to be – the word of God – then Macleay is right and the rest of you are rebellion. One should expect that of atheists, but seems very hypocritical coming from professing Christians.
February 14th, 2010 at 4:12 pm
Jim, I’m sorry that you are an atheist. During World War 2, when shells were firing overhead, surprising how those who had previously claimed to be agnostic, cried out to God!
I can understand people claiming to be agnostic but not atheist. Surely where there is a design then there must have neen a designer? Where movement a first mover? Where an effect a cause preceding it?
Brcause of such things I can understand the Psalmist who wrote: ‘The fool has aid in his heart that there is no God!’ Blunt words for him to say, but surely one can see their logic.
Also, of course, to accept that animate matter can evolve from inanimate; that more complex integration can evolve from lesser matter void of such qualities, takes a bit of swallowing. Surely it is much more reasonable then to believe in a conscious creator than to reject the possibility?
I’m not saying that this, necessarily applies to your good self; but a vast percentage of Non believers find it more convenient to follow such reasoning which, at a suconscious level, is often very much psychological rationalisation!
I must close now as this is still my most active working day. Yes, and the Christian’s Sabbath too! Now how about that for controversy?
Give me an honest and hearty doubter any day, to that of a prig of a Papist or a poker faced Puritan!
February 14th, 2010 at 4:37 pm
As a member of the United Protestant Council of the UK I personally invite any to our public meetings on Saturday 6th March at 1pm. To be held, DV at St John’s Wood Baptist Church
39, St. John’s Wood Road,
London NW8 8QX
on Saturday 6th March 2010
Topic: Evolution
1pm: Implications for The Nation.
3pm: Implications for the Church
our speaker will be Dr Monty White
our brother will address these topics in relation
to today’s equality legislation
There will be opportunity for Tea/Coffee and fellowship
between each session and bookstalls from
supporting societies will be available
Everyone Welcome
*The church is closeby Lord’s cricket ground on
St.John’s Wood Road,
closest underground stations – Warwick Avenue and St.John’s Wood.
Hon Secretary: IAN HENDERSON ?0151 494 0945
February 14th, 2010 at 7:03 pm
Describing me as “a stinted spiritual pigmy” while assuring me that you wish me well is not only rude but blatantly insincere. Either be forgivingly Christian about it or insult me. You can’t do both successfully.
Trying to patronise someone is always unwise, James, but particularly online when you can have no idea of the person’s age or background.
I see you’re opposed to gay people as well as women, and a proponent of Intelligent Design. I’m guessing you’re American. Only American churchmen seem to have quite that mix of entitlement and intellectual insecurity.
In England we expect respect to go both ways. We respect our vicars and in return they don’t present us with ideas that insult our intelligence, which is why the words of Angus MacLeay and Mark Oden have caused such a furore here.
February 14th, 2010 at 7:07 pm
A letter to the Sevenoaks Chronicle which first reported on Macleay and Oden. ‘ The Sevenoaks Chronicle has been doing its readers a service recently in reporting the antics of the church of St Nicholas and those who run Alpha courses in the town and who appear to think that people will be attracted to hear people like Jonathan Aitkin, arms dealer, adulterer and convicted perjurer, talk about their ‘faith’. It has been pitiful to see St Nicholas’ church turned into a bastion of think-nothing, do-nothing fundamentalism during the reigns of the previous rector, Miles Thomson, and the current one, Angus Macleay. Some members of the church would no doubt point to the building of the Undercroft as its greatest achievement, but this hugely expensive addition to the church has produced nothing but a prison for female members of the congregation. Women in the church are expected to do nothing but raise children, tend their husbands and serve cake and coffee. Now we hear they are not even allowed to speak. Well done to those women who have engaged their brains and walked out. They can look forward to being overwhelmed by Christian hatred and criticism from those who stay, but can comfort themselves with the thought that they won’t have to spend eternity with them’.
February 14th, 2010 at 8:09 pm
It might surprise you to know Pastor Thompson that sometimes I too am sorry that I am an atheist. I think it would be a great comfort to have faith in your God. In all honesty it is not for want of trying. However, the more deeply I have delved the more I have been led inexorably to the conclusion that I am truly what is termed an Atheist. I was brought up by devout, caring parents, and until my late teens I guess you could have called me a devout Christian.
At 17 I joined the Army. I was a naive idealist, and I truly believed I was defending those who could not defend themselves. I rapidly learned that life is infinitely more complicated, and that often there is no “good” answer; simply a “less bad” one. Actually I have been shot at a number of times, and I have lost some good friends and comrades to bullets and bombs. Any shred of religious conviction was erased by the over 3 years I spent in some of the toughest parts of Northern Ireland during the “Troubles”. The more I thought about it the less I could rationalise my faith with cold hard reality and the blind hatred and bigotry displayed by my fellow humans.
That old chestnut about there being no atheists in foxholes is I’m afraid very dated. To be honest I can recall a time when I was in extreme circumstances when I prayed for a miracle, but that was just a moment of desperation. It did not last once the crisis had passed, and it did not make me religious again even though I survived. I was brought up in the Church and indoctrinated from an early age – I think that may explain why I reverted to that childhood wishful thinking in extremis.
Regarding agnosticism: You say that you can understand people claiming to be agnostic but not atheist – That does surprise me. You cannot empirically prove God’s existence any more than I can prove God’s non-exitence. Does that make you an agnostic. If so then we’re all agnostics and the word loses its meaning. I have no doubt that you have faith, and that you sincerely believe in God, but that is surely not the same thing as proof.
In fact I’m not sure how agnosticism can be more than a temporary status, if one is truly willing to think deeply and research the case for and against God. I have read so many of the arguments, from Ontological through Cosmological to some really brain numbingly complex and frankly weird ideas, and I have read history and had endless discussions. And from this position of knowledge I have come to the conclusion that there is no God. Furthermore, in my World, there is no need for God, and I feel so liberated by that thought. I have no doubt that others with the same experiences would have gone the other way. Humans are by nature rationalisers, but maybe its just chance as which side of the fence an individual’s rationalisation makes them land. For some the outcome is to embrace religion; for others not.
I do not think for a minute that I will “convert” anyone to my view. Nor do I seek to. I guess it’s just that there are some very silly so called atheists out there who deal in sensationalist soundbites, and I find it very frustrating to be lumped in with these people.
I do try to live a moral life, and show care and compassion for my fellow humans. I have no difficulty subscribing to the tenet of the so called “Golden Rule”, though in my case it is purely my internal moral compass that drives this, as I believe it does for all humans, whether they acknowledge it or not.
Regarding your argument that starts “…where there is a design then there must have neen a designer? ” Gosh. How long have you got? This is the really big ione, and the clincher for me. Imagine that I could find a way to prove to you that the Universe itself is not bounded by our concepts of time, space and energy, would you then accept that there was no need for a creator? Probably not. The Bible is such a wonderfully comprehensive book, and open to so wide an interpretation, that I guess you would adapt to the new information, as Christians have through the centuries. Let’s just agree to differ on this. I am confident that in due course we will be able to provide a convincing proof of the boundless nature of the Universe without a need for a God Creator.
This is all well and good, and I would reiterate that I have absolutely no difficulty with people practicing their religion with due regard to the needs of all their fellow humans, and in doing the good which so many selflessly commit to. I have the greatest respect for these people.
But what does make my blood boil is when I see what I can only describe as religious bigotry. How dare people condemn at least half the human race to a subordinate or submissive role! The evidence is all around us that this does not, and should not, reflect reality. Have the last few thousand years of civilisation really led people to such a narrow and meretricious conclusion? If it were so, how incredibly depressing it would be. Thankfully it is not, and this kind of attitude effectively marginalises those who subscribe to it. I am generally a fairly placid and laid back person, but don’t be surprised if you see me actively campaigning against this view. It is way too important to let pass.
Well , I may not have made any friends on this website, but I hope I have explained why I and others find this thinking so very wrong.
Might there not just be an interpretation of the scriptures which the fundamental difference between the society in which we now live, and the society at the time when the books of the Bible were written? I do hope so.
Sorry this is so long but thhere were many key points to answer.
Jim
February 14th, 2010 at 8:41 pm
Always keen to know more about the people with whom I interact I looked up your website Pastor Thompson. I’m assuming that you are the same Pastor who is the “animals” padre”? I apologise if I am wrong, but if you are, then I found the following paragraph contained within one of the pages:
“…
A Christian’s dominion over ‘lower’ forms of life, then, should be a reflection of Christ’s dominion over us! Or of a Christian husband’s dominion over the Woman he is called to cherish, protect, and possibly die for! It is, similarly, comparable to the dominion that Christian parents are expected to have over their offspring. Yes, it is all a dominion which is to be wed to a caring stewardship. An authority which protects and nourishes defenseless or weaker forms of life around.
…”
I do heartily agree with your enlightened view of animal husbandry, but i take issue with your apparent view of women.
Do you not think it is wrong to regard women as defenseless or weaker forms of life? Are there not plenty of very strong women in the Bible, who are more than capable of taking care of themselves?
And why shouldn’t a woman afford the same sort of protection and nourishment to her husband if he were in need? I know mine would have done.
February 14th, 2010 at 9:14 pm
I know exactly what you mean, Dr Draper. One of our local churches has become very born-again and fundamentalist. Submissive wives provide loads of home baking for their meetings. I suppose that’s a plus as long as I don’t have to participate. Brides wear white in these churches to match the rest of the kitchen appliances.
This church also offered Jonathan Aitken as a major treat, and I’m afraid a surprising number of people were excited about meeting such a well-known person. I wouldn’t want to share air space with the man. I remember all to well his “sword of truth”. Had I betrayed my family and my country so comprehensively I’d be concentrating on repentance and restitution rather than seeking further publicity.
On a more serious note, I believe that as societies move towards acknowledging human equality we move towards truth. I suspect Jesus would be as annoyed by the modern Pharisees who reject women bishops as he was by the money men in the temple. Jesus himself said a lot about love and very little about sex or domination.
There will always be some men who use religion to exploit women. Doesn’t matter which religion – Islam, Judaism, Christianity, whatever – there will always be blokes, often bearded, using it to oppress their wives and often their children too. We may laugh at how badly they’ve mistaken the message, but the damage they do is all too real and must be resisted by anyone who believes that God is love.
Jesus must be profoundly embarrassed by some of those who claim to be his representatives.
February 14th, 2010 at 9:39 pm
Sophie said:
‘We may laugh at how badly they’ve mistaken the message, but the damage they do is all too real and must be resisted by anyone who believes that God is love.
Jesus must be profoundly embarrassed by some of those who claim to be his representatives.’
Does this not make YOU embarrassed?
Why do you cling to the name of Christ and yet reject what He has taught you in the NT? You want to pick and choose the bits of NT teaching that suit you.
Would you not be more honest if you said the Bible is ancient folklore – and became a secular humanist instead?
February 14th, 2010 at 10:00 pm
What about the Old Testament, Ian? Or maybe even you are embarrassed to advocate stoning for adultery?
Still, good to have at least one man engage with the women on this blog. Can you make good cakes?
LOL.
February 14th, 2010 at 10:22 pm
Hello Jim.
You’ve made a friend in me. Your long, thoughtful post struck many chords. The idea that if there is a design then there must be a designer is, as you say, bogus. It’s a false proposition.
Christian thinkers in the UK see the Creation story as a myth, very like the myths of other times and cultures. They see the Old Testament as an historical document, interesting and valuable in its own way, but not factual or divinely sanctioned. The idea that either the Creation story is literally true or that the Universe is proof of a divine creator wasn’t part of my Christian upbringing. Nor were antiquated ideas about the role of women. I was taught the Bible was a collection of stories, some more reliable than others. I was never taught that any of it was literally true. But there seem to be more and more nutters who believe it’s all totally factual, even when it contradicts itself. Beware of those who quote Scriptures – you can find a bit that justifies most things!
Creationism and Intelligent Design are, however, increasingly popular in America, as are these rather primitive ideas about the role of women. From what I can gather, it’s a symptom of the American “Religious Right” There are state schools in America locked in legal disputes over teaching children that the Creation myth is fact. Scary stuff, and it appears to be spreading. As the Taleban is to Islam, so is the Religious Right to Christianity – though much less violent.
When you ask if there’s a way of bridging the gap between society in Jesus’s time and society now, there is. A theologian explained to me that Jesus chose helpers who could travel widely and not offend too many Jewish taboos. He could easily have chosen people of many races – Jerusalem at the time was very cosmopolitan – but he stuck to locals, because they were more acceptable. Similarly there would have been many limbless war veterans in Israel but no wheelchairs. Does the absence of a limbless disciple mean that only the fit and healthy can be bishops? No, of course it doesn’t. Saying women (or gays) can’t be bishops because Jesus didn’t choose women is as baseless as saying all bishops must be Jews.
Jesus, interestingly, was very quiet on sexual dos and don’t. He deliberately drew attention to a woman caught in adultery and used her, not to condemn women or to preach about sexuality, but to condemn those all too willing to condemn others. He told her to go and sin no more but he could easily have added all sorts of stuff about marriage and women’s role if he wanted to but he didn’t. He talked about love. And to me that says something.
The person who does go on about women is Paul, and he was no less a flawed sinner than the rest of us.
I’m with you, Jim. The one thing that makes me really intolerant is intolerance.
February 14th, 2010 at 10:30 pm
Sophie,
I take your point concerning Alpha courses and dramatic ‘testimonies’ which can do more harm than good.
My view is that there will be biblical repentance if someone professes Christianity. It is easy to claim that religion is used to ‘exploit’ women but where the Bible is taught and believed this should not be so. There is a balance and we find this in Ephesians chapter 5 v 25 ‘Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it’ also in verse 21 where Paul spoke of ‘submission to one another in the fear of God’.
February 14th, 2010 at 10:49 pm
We’ve crossed paths, as it were, Raymond. I’ve just warned Jim about people quoting scripture!
Ephesians is the writing of a flawed human being stuck, as we all are, in his own time and with his own background. It’s advice very much drawn from his Jewish upbringing and it’s consistent with that.
It should be seen as an historical document, interesting of itself. It’s not based on anything said by Jesus, let alone is it the word of God. Anyone who relies on the Bible can be just as easily undone by it – there’s all sorts of weird, outrageous, silly and disgusting stuff there.
February 14th, 2010 at 11:02 pm
I am sorry Sophie that you brush aside the authority of Holy Scripture because ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God
and is not just the words of men. 2 Timothy 3 v 6
The clear teaching and words of Christ are also inspired. I warmly invite you to come along to our meeting on March 6th
if you are close to London. I will be there from Belfast, God willing.
February 14th, 2010 at 11:12 pm
“Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which entereth into that within the veil.” Hebrews 6:19
Anchors, you know, are made of different sizes. You may walk in the Queen’s Dockyard, and there you may see anchors for a boat, and anchors for a three-decker. Yet all anchors are made in the same way, and are designed for the same purpose; and the little anchor that holds the boat is as useful and as much an anchor as that which holds the three-decker. So spiritually. There is hope in the heart of the babe. But the hope in the heart of a babe is but as the anchor of a boat; yet it holds that babe as firmly as the anchor holds the boat to which it is moored. But as the Lord increases hope, he increases the size of the anchor; and as the vessel and its anchor always bear a proportion to each other, so when he enlarges the size of the anchor he increases the size of the ship. Nay more, as he increases the size of the ship, he increases its burden, for these two are proportionate. Thus hope takes a more vigorous hold within the veil; it enters more deeply into the presence of God; it takes a firmer grasp of covenant engagements, electing love, the immutability of God’s purposes, and the unchangeable nature of the great eternal I AM. Have you not felt at times your hope sweetly enlarged, so that it almost attained to the “full assurance of hope?” Scarcely a cloud remained between you and God; and you believed you should ride triumphantly into the haven of bliss and peace; and having these blessed sensations in your heart, you could part with life itself at that moment to fall into the embrace of your God.
February 14th, 2010 at 11:19 pm
Oh so you do believe in stoning for adultery then, Raymond? or you just ‘obey’ the bits you like or think politically correct? Would you be even happier in Afghanistan than in Belfast?
February 15th, 2010 at 8:20 am
This response from the Rev Marc Oden in the Times today:-
Times
February 15th, 2010 at 8:49 am
Raymond Stewart says..”Thus hope takes a more vigorous hold within the veil; it enters more deeply into the presence of God; it takes a firmer grasp of covenant engagements, electing love, the immutability of God’s purposes, and the unchangeable nature of the great eternal I AM. Have you not felt at times your hope sweetly enlarged, so that it almost attained to the “full assurance of hope?” Scarcely a cloud remained between you and God; and you believed you should ride triumphantly into the haven of bliss and peace; and having these blessed sensations in your heart, you could part with life itself at that moment to fall into the embrace of your God.”
That was lovely, Raymond, really lovely. It is most edifying to focus in on the awesomeness of our Lord.
February 15th, 2010 at 11:08 am
Raymond Stewart also says: ALL Scrpiture is given by the inspiration of God. What about the nasty bits, Raymond and Ian-the stoning for adultery, say? Let’s have an answer.
February 15th, 2010 at 2:08 pm
Raymond Stewart wrote: I am sorry Sophie that you brush aside the authority of Holy Scripture because ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God and is not just the words of men. 2 Timothy 3 v 6″
I’m not sure that being told by the writer that everything he writes is inspired by God is terribly convincing! There are people all over the internet at this very moment who think the same. Jesus didn’t tell us “Oh, and by the way, every word written in my name, even long after my death, has got to be true.” The Bible has been around a long time, but being old doesn’t make something true. The history of the Bible is of a library of books, all bound together.
I explained previously that I was taught the Bible was a collection of stories, some more reliable than others.
I was also taught was that, when Christianity first started, its teachings about central issues such as the lesson of the Samaritan, about loving your neighbour, were so radical and so huge in concept that adding too many details would have made the new faith unworkable. Lots of the lesser matters rely on normal Jewish practice for the time.
Others did not. Some early Christians took Christ’s message so much to heart that they shared every single thing they possessed. The first true communists.
What’s really interesting about the message of Jesus himself is what he *didn’t* say. Other prophets, Islam being a striking example, show an unhealthy interest in sex and a dislike of women. Jesus made no pronouncements on marital relationships, other than that a wedding should be a celebration. The wedding at Cana was a perfect opportunity for Jesus to say what women’s role in marriage should be. He didn’t say anything. He provided the drinks.
He asked us to love each other, regardless of background or colour. He asked us not to cast the first stone. He hated the Pharisees. In these messages I find permission to create any sort of marriage I and my husband want, so long as we love each other.
There are far too many Pharisees. And a shockingly large proportion of them are inside the church. These men at Sevenoaks are a poor advert for their faith.
February 15th, 2010 at 7:25 pm
Good stuff Sophie! My understanding of the Christian faith over many many years is that the most important message was that we should love our neighbour as ourselves – treat others as we would want to be treated. All other commandments hinge on that one, which is the crux of Christian teaching. As I mentioned in my earlier post when everything “hit the fan” to speak, in his lifetime Christ surrounded himself with strong and capable women and ealier Proverbs 31 describes a married woman who ran her own business and was a leader and pillar of the community – no shrinking violet here!
I was amused by Mark Oden’s encouragement for men to “put the briefcase down, walk into the kitchen and put the Marigolds on” He also mentioned that a male parishioner did not know what Marigolds were. Why am I not surprised? I blame the parents for not making sure their sons were given responsibilities at home before they left the nest – some mothers have a lot to answer for by spoiling their sons and keeping them tied to their aprons strings.
I am all for men coming home and helping with bathing the children and reading them bedtimes stories. So many fathers get home so late that their children do not see them in the weekday evenings and by doing so they end up alienating their children. In some families it has got so bad that when they see someone around at the weekend doing “manly” things like knocking nails into pieces of wood or putting together a flatpack piece of furniture, they assume it is Mummy’s hired handyman and not their father! Yes, men, you are there as part of a family unit to share with family responsibilities, NOT to lord it over your wife or anyone else.
February 15th, 2010 at 7:26 pm
“Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures.” Luke 24:45
Blessed opening, when He that hath the key of David puts in his hand by the hole of the door, and opens our heart to receive his own word. Then when we go to the Word of Truth, after it has come to us, our fingers drop with sweet-smelling myrrh upon the handles of the lock. It is said that “the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live.” O, to hear the voice of the Son of God in our hearts! Surely it shall make our dead hearts, cold frames, withering hopes, drooping love, dying faith, languishing prayers, and fainting minds live; yea, revive as the corn and grow as the vine. What is all religion without a divine beginning, middle, and end, commencing, carried on, and accomplished with a heavenly power, supernatural life, and spiritual unction? Well may we be ashamed and sick of, and sorry for all our thoughts, words, and works, all our knowledge and profession that have not stood, or do not stand, in the power, teaching, and wisdom of God. All our talk has been but vain babbling, our prayers lip-service, our preaching wind and vanity, our profession hypocrisy, our knowledge the worst kind of ignorance, and all our religion carnality or delusion, if they have not been divinely communicated. Sir Isaac Newton, the wisest philosopher, is said to have remarked to one who congratulated him on his knowledge, “I have been like a little child on the sea-shore taking up a little water in a shell when the vast ocean of truth lay undiscovered before me.” Much more may a spiritual man feel how little, how nothing he knows of the unsearchable riches of Christ, and the boundless stores of wisdom hid in them.
February 15th, 2010 at 7:54 pm
Your comment Sophie ‘I was taught the Bible was a collection of stories, some more reliable than others’ indicates that you do not believe that God’s word is inspired and inerrant and the only rule of faith and practice for the Christian.
Are you depending on the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ to save you from your sin for All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. The Lord Jesus came to save His people from their sins, have you repented by turning from your sin ?
I seriously doubt your Christian profession if you cast doubt on God’s word. Satan did so in the book of Genesis Read ch.3 v 1 ‘Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the Garden’
February 15th, 2010 at 8:02 pm
Hi, Dr. Draper
You said: ‘What about the Old Testament, Ian? Or maybe even you are embarrassed to advocate stoning for adultery?
Still, good to have at least one man engage with the women on this blog. Can you make good cakes?
LOL.’
I have no embarrassment with the OT. God gave the Israelite nation a set of laws for their good governance, just as the U.K. has a set of laws. Our laws today, very secular in nature, still impose grave sanctions on many actions. Of course, being a secular society, most sexual behaviour is now permitted.
God still regards adultery as a grave offence, and if our society was in the same relationship to Him as was Israel, we might still execute adulterers. However, that is not God’s intention – for He no longer has a nation set aside to declare His sovereignty.
Our society’s laws ought to be in line with His on matters of public welfare, but private morality is between us and God. The State is meant to deal with the other matters – theft, murder, rape, etc. He will bring us to judgement on our private sins.
February 15th, 2010 at 8:14 pm
First of all, Sophie, dont take to heart those who seriously doubt your Christian profession (if you have one). Yours is a really cogent summary of the way the books of what are called the bible got put together. But when thinking women speak up, in comes the criticism and hatred from men.
If you dont fancy spending eternity with these men you can join the National Secular Society and get a de-baptism certificate for added certainty, in case not believing exactly what they do isnt enough to get you into hell! Im planning to party with the sinners there, and believe me it’s going to be a good one (all my gay and Muslim friends will be there for a start)!
Ian, I enjoyed the sophistry.
LOL
February 15th, 2010 at 8:17 pm
James counts to 100 before committing his thoughts to paper, in the hope that his response will be more moderate…….
Sophie, Diana and others: I think we may be trying to communcate our sincere and heartfelt feelings to someone who has closed his ears to anything which does not fit his literal view of the Word of God. Perhaps there is no meaningful dialogue possible with such a person, no matter how hard and how sincere we all try. Reason is not part of his agenda. If we try to explain our positions, he will either try to patronise us, or will resort to quoting scriptures and launching into a poetic but irrelevant fantasy, which may impress those who want to be impressed, but are wasted on the rest of us. We are not simpletons who can be patted on the heads and be told condescendingly of the errors of our ways.
Raymond. I would respectfully suggest that you are preaching to the wrong audience. I am not clear what you think you are hoping to achieve. Let me tell you why I find this particular blog so helpful, if it will help to explain:
I do not call myself a Christian, but that does not mean that I reject what I perceive to be wonderful Christian values. There are truly “good” people who contribute to this blog, from whom I learn so much. They do not try to preach, or to convert, and in so doing they reach people like me. Who knows, maybe one day I will reconvert. If I do, it will be through the intercession of enlightened Christians like these. You may say that theirs is not “true” Christianity, but, with respect, who are you to say that yours is THE true Christianity and all others are wrong?
I am constantly puzzled by the endless internecine struggles between the various sects who all call themsleves Christians. I think it spoke volumes that you stated in your first reponse to me: (And I quote exactly what you wrote)
“Give me an honest and hearty doubter any day, to that of a prig of a Papist or a poker faced Puritan!”
Shame on you! What hope is there for the future of Christianity whilst there are people with your sort of bigoted and destructive views.
Perhaps you will find this contribution is intemperate. Too right it is! I don’t get any more intemperate than this! Please understand that I do always try to be constructive, even with people with whom I profoundly disagree, but you do make it so very hard to be so. And yes, I reiterate, there is nothing that makes me more intemperate than intemperance.
Counts to another 100 before reading through this again….
I hope I have made my point clearly.
February 15th, 2010 at 8:27 pm
Oh, and James is what I call myself when I’m intensely frustrated.
I’m done with this thread. I have no confidence we can have any meaningful dialogue. I will continue to appreciate the blog and will pop up elsewhere I’m sure. Thank you for reading my contributions thus far.
Jim
February 15th, 2010 at 8:49 pm
Hi, Sophie
You said: ‘Does the absence of a limbless disciple mean that only the fit and healthy can be bishops? No, of course it doesn’t. Saying women (or gays) can’t be bishops because Jesus didn’t choose women is as baseless as saying all bishops must be Jews.’
If that was the reason for denying women the eldership, then you would be correct. But it is not – at least in Evangelical circles. Our reason is the specific ban on women’s leadership of men in the church, given by the apostle Paul.
You also said ‘The person who does go on about women is Paul, and he was no less a flawed sinner than the rest of us.’
Paul was also an apostle of Jesus Christ – one appointed by him and endued with the Holy Spirit so that he could infallibly teach what Christ wanted us to know.
‘Jesus, interestingly, was very quiet on sexual dos and don’t. He deliberately drew attention to a woman caught in adultery and used her, not to condemn women or to preach about sexuality, but to condemn those all too willing to condemn others. He told her to go and sin no more but he could easily have added all sorts of stuff about marriage and women’s role if he wanted to but he didn’t. He talked about love. And to me that says something.’
Where did He mention love in this case? He showed the hypocrisy of the accusers, and He told the adulteress to sin no more. He did indeed talk about love in many others places – especially the love we ought to have for God. He said it is seen in our obedience to His commandments. Those who sin, sexually or otherwise, are not being loving toward God.
From your other comments I see that the Christianity you have been exposed to is not the historic type – not that of the NT, nor even of the general church down the ages. It is a pity these people call themselves Christian when they have discarded so much of the foundation articles of the Christian church.
Just a little research will show you real Christianity – the sort Wilberforce wrote about in his book of that name – and the same that is proclaimed in the NT. Britain once had a firm grasp of what it meant to be a Christian, even by those who rejected Christianity. The witness of John Bunyan, John Wesley, George Whitfield, Charles Spurgeon, in past generations were known by most citizens.
Today the Evangelical church is much smaller and many non-Christians don’t even know who Jesus was, let alone what He taught. Many who call themselves Christians know little of what it means. Even the term Evangelical is very debased and can cover all sorts of heresy.
So your confusion about Christianity is not surprising. Whatever you think about it, it would be good to find out the authentic version before making judgements about how we do or do not correctly represent it.
February 15th, 2010 at 8:58 pm
Dr. Draper said:
‘But when thinking women speak up, in comes the criticism and hatred from men’.
Criticism has been offered – but never hatred. Do you claim to see into my heart? I respect Sophie as one made in God’s image and I have concern for her eternal welfare. What’s so evil about that?
‘If you dont fancy spending eternity with these men you can join the National Secular Society and get a de-baptism certificate for added certainty, in case not believing exactly what they do isnt enough to get you into hell! Im planning to party with the sinners there, and believe me it’s going to be a good one (all my gay and Muslim friends will be there for a start)!’
No need to do anything special to get admittance to hell. A life of unbelief guarantees it.
February 15th, 2010 at 9:24 pm
Ian, Hatred is your bitchy last remark (and you xians are supposed to love?) although it wasnt actually a whole life of unbelief- I didnt give up on Christianity until I encountered those sainted evangelical men of St Nicholas’ Church, Miles Thomson and Angus Macleay. We seem to have come full circle.
All, Im with Jim/James on this, and done with the thread for there is no real dialogue.
Goodbye.
February 15th, 2010 at 10:43 pm
Dear Jim, thank you for your comments. You have obviously ‘been through the mill’ having seen life in the raw. However, we live as the one human family upon this earth and there are things that God Himself cannot do.
Confining Himself to His own laws, he cannot create human families in which a member of the same can either be able to bless or blight the rest. Yes, no more than He is able to make a circle square! Consequently, often the innocent members suffer the most while the most offensive get away with things ‘scot free’. But to the Christian: he/she believes in a future life where wrongs will finally be rectified
I too have ‘been through the mill’ for example: losing a child; having one seriously retarded; being through divorce; etc. However, the loveliest people I’ve come across have been those who have seen and witnessed so much suffering. And, for myself, these have been practising Christians!
Through our pain and bereavement experiences we begin to think at a deeper level and look for some future existence as necessary to counteract the injustices of the present one. Jesus being, of course, the greatest of all examples. He was the most sensitive of all; and the more sensitive we are then the more we suffer!
However, Christ draws near to us and turns the evil schemes of sinful men into a way of bringing forth the greatest blessings of all: His life’s blood for the salvation of the world: ‘that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have eternal life’.
People talk about ‘being born again’, having seen the light’; being saved; being converted. Yes cliches of which some of its exponents are very poor examples. However, behind such words there is a genuine experience. Do not throw out the baby with the bathwater! Search for Him with all your heart and you Will find Him
PS: Yes I am the one referred to as The Animals’ padre, and I hope you find true blessing from my website.
God bless you my dear friend!
I’ll never cease to pray for you. Have faith in God
February 15th, 2010 at 10:52 pm
Beginning of 2nd paragraph should read:
Confining Himself to His own laws, he cannot create human families in which a member of the same CANNOT either be able to bless or blight the rest!
February 15th, 2010 at 11:35 pm
I appreciate your comments Pastor Thompson, and I apologise for my intemperance. We are all trying to seek truth in our own ways, and I take this all very seriously.
If you really want to know more about what makes me the way I am, you may care to look at the UTube videos by my comrade Evid3nc3 at:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A0C3C1D163BE880A&annotation_id=annotation_161901&feature=iv
If you only watch one of the 12 videos then watch the last one “The End”. The production standard is pretty ropy for the first videos but gets progressively better…
I don’texpect you to agree with the arguments put forward, but they might help you understand why I and people like me feel the way we do.
Peace.
February 16th, 2010 at 12:04 am
http://www.stnicholas-sevenoaks.org/resources/sermon-recordings/
I hope everybody who has contributed to this v.thought provoking blog has listened to both the talks in the series by Mark Oden.
I suppose it would be foolish to comment on the issue and what was really said founded on the readings and content of a newspaper!
The link should take you straight to the talks.
The first on the women’s role and the second on the husband’s role in a God centred marriage.
What an incredible example (kind of scary to a 20yr old like me!) I am given by Jesus – in relation to my role – if I am to commit my life to someone in marriage!!!
February 16th, 2010 at 7:29 am
Ah- a new contributor- Luke joins in. His is the line which St Nicholas’ church is preparing to take on the criticism of its views and preaching, that it is all stirred up and misprepresented by the press (look out for the letter in the Sevenoaks Chronicle on Thursday in which David Kilingray will make this case, a letter run past the Rector to ensure he agrees with it). But it aint so, Luke. Former women members of the church do exist and they left because they had no choice: accept the the moronic official line on women’s roles or nothing.
I hope you are a great deal older and have seen more of life before you marry, Luke, and for your wife’s sake do not live in Sevenoaks and attend St Nicholas. There -as you know -and as others can see on the church’s website- all activites are divided by gender. The subliminal message, and no doubt the one preached is that women should stay at home with babies and make cake for men. Hope you are rich! Have you considered going to university and seeing life (by which I do not mean attending Exeter and its nice evangelical Christian Union)? Meet some other people before you inflict yourself and the archaic views of MacLeay and Oden on a woman.
February 16th, 2010 at 7:55 am
MacLeay and Oden must be doing something that many agree with, they have an 800 strong church. That’s a mega church in the UK, and of course the diocese is evangelical conversative.
Yet, while many object to MacLeay and Oden views, they are tame in comparison to some of the hyper Calvinists found around the world. Whose women pride themselves on their flora smocks made by their own fair hands, and their cake baking. This is their choice though, this is, they believe how they honour God, and may they be blessed in living that way.
However, I always find it a little disconcerning when the ‘the do’s and don’ts’ of Paul’s teaching are preached, rather than our Lord, and Him cruxified.
February 16th, 2010 at 8:01 am
Dr GM Draper,
You asked a number of times about stoning for adultery, perhaps you are asking the wrong people, as far as I was aware it is a practise used by Islamic extremists, not Jews or Christians.
February 16th, 2010 at 8:06 am
What they are doing right is being the clergy of a church which is a major gatekeeper to two popular schools, one primary (Lady Boswell’s) , one secondary (Bennett Memorial). The former has abandoned any pretence of being the school for children living in the parish. Its admissions policy states that preference is given to ‘Children whose parents are at the heart of St Nicholas Parish Church, Sevenoaks (the Church to which Lady Boswell’s School, Sevenoaks is linked)’ . Young familes attend so as to get their children in; read the policy (it’s online). (The same incidentally is true of the Roman Catholic church is Sevenoaks which has a huge attendance of young families who want to get thier children into St Thomas’ Primary school).
Families stay at St Nicholas as insurance so that they can get a place at Bennett Memorial christian comprenhensive school if the kids dont get a grammar school place or the parents find themselves unable to pay. The same sorry picture is well known near ‘faith’ schools anywhere in the UK now.
February 16th, 2010 at 8:39 am
Well that is a sorry state of affairs. I can possibly imagine that a small percentage of families would start attending church purely to ensure a place for their child in what they consider is the best school, if they couldn’t afford to pay for education. Yet they would still be a small percentage, it still doesn’t account for such a strong congregation.
February 16th, 2010 at 9:58 am
Where I live families will pay £25,000 extra for a house in the right catchment area. It’s cheaper than school fees. And many families use high profile involvement at the right church to get their child into the right primary. These churches are packed on Sundays.
Last year I had the first falling-out I’ve ever had with my adult stepdaughter over this issue. She had begun the process of converting to Catholicism for no other reason than to obtain a school place for her daughter. She simply couldn’t understand why I minded.
It was only when I pointed out that while she and her bloke live together she’s unlikely to be able to receive communion that she paused. When her bloke flatly refused to convert the whole idea was abandoned.
It saddens me that despite two lovely kids they still aren’t married. Like many young couples they’re saving for a lavish wedding, which seems all wrong to me.
Anyway, on the subject of women in the church I agree with many that the thread is worn out. Not that we’ve exhausted the topic but that it’s fruitless to debate with those who revert to quoting scripture and mystic imagery.
There’s a very interesting article about the truth or otherwise of scriptures here: http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20090913/focus/focus2.html
As the author writes: “Biblical scholarship itself has significantly undermined belief in the Bible as the authoritative word of God. Unknown to most people is the fact that their pastor, if he is in mainline Christianity (like Methodists, Anglicans, Roman Catholics or Presbyterians and even evangelical churches), is likely not to see the Bible the way congregants do.”
February 16th, 2010 at 10:05 am
Carol wrote to Dr GM Draper:
“You asked a number of times about stoning for adultery, perhaps you are asking the wrong people, as far as I was aware it is a practise used by Islamic extremists, not Jews or Christians.”
The woman taken in adultery was about to be stoned to death. It’s because she was about to be stoned that saying “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” makes sense. It’s not the only Biblical reference to this form of punishment.
February 16th, 2010 at 10:24 am
Hi Sophie,
The woman taken in adultery was not about to be stoned. The whole scenario was set as an entrapment of the Christ. It was completely unlawful (Mosiac Law according to Torah). for it to be lawful, the man would also have been presented for stoning, and also the 2 -3 witnesses that caught them both in the act would have needed to testify. The Pharisees wanted Jesus to condone the stoning of the woman so that they could arrest Him for breaking the law.
February 16th, 2010 at 10:42 am
You may be right about the entrapment of Christ but, as I said, this is by no means the only Biblical reference to this form of punishment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning#Bible_and_Judaic_prescriptions
I’m always wary of Wikipedia, so here some more.
http://www.naves-topical-bible.com/STONING.html
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090501163332AA88oWt
February 16th, 2010 at 12:54 pm
Dear bloggers,
somewhere in the postings, I think a message has been lost. Perhaps the most important one of all – to love thy neighbour as thyself. Well, to me that pretty much sums it all up.
I think these messages about women are equally balanced out by the messages about men – and they appear usually alongside eachother. As a woman, I would never object to having a husband who loved me so much that he would defend me to the death if that’s what saving me meant. And defence from spiritual attack is no small thing. A husband must love his wife as much as Christ loved the Church – well, Christ took up a cross and died for his church…that’s a whole lot of love. If someone loved me that much, I’d do anything I could to help him out if he needed it too. It’s reciprocal thing. To me, if I love someone, I want to help them.
Then we get mixed up in the trivia about rules and regulations – should a woman wear a headscarf in church? Well the same passage says men should all have short hair – so that would men each man would need to get a haircut. Or – were these just the rules of the day? And are these things really that much of a stumbling block? I wouldn’t go to church wearing a miniskirt and fishnet stockings – which in Paul’s day would have been the same as not wearing a headscarf. But, perhaps I want to wear a miniskirt on a Friday afternoon – it doesn’t matter.
The point is, if you’re in love – it’s a two way thing. It’s not that you’re going to have a terrible time, because you both care about each other. It only becomes a problem if one or both parties are not in love. But – God doesn’t ask you to marry someone you don’t love.
I never heard the original sermon so I can’t comment on what the Reverand said – but I hope and I imagine that since he’s a man of God, he would probably do anything at all for his family – and I’m sure he also asked the men in the congregation to do the same.
February 16th, 2010 at 1:14 pm
Thanks Felicity, I did mention the “love thy neighbour as thyself” several postings ago as, to me, it is the crux of Christianity and was referred to in the Bible as the most important commandment of all.
It is how you live your life day to day and how you treat those with whom you come in contact which defines you as a true Christian, not constantly quoting reams of scripture. In Christ’s day he and his followers met in the open air and did not have buildings in which to meet. Church buildings were built long after Christ died and he certainly did not judge people by whether they did or did not warmed a church pew on the sabbath. That might come as a bit of a shock to some people who consider themselves Christians. I spent years studying the history of Christianity as well as Christianity itself and much of what we have today has evolved over the centuries and has little to do with Christ’s original message.
February 16th, 2010 at 1:44 pm
It should be understood that the submission of a wife to her husband required by God in the Scriptures is not the same submission as that of the wrestling ring! Scripture is clear that from Creation the husband is the head of the wife. He is to ‘love her as Christ loved his Church and gave himself’ for it (Ephesians 5:25). Where the husband acts in such a manner it will an easy thing for the wife to submit to such a tender-hearted husband. The Puritan Minister Matthew Henry wrote, ‘…woman was made out of the side of Adam; not made out of his head to rule over him, nor out of his feet to be trampled upon by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be beloved.’ Where such a situation exists the wife will delight to honour her husband in the Biblical sense of wifely submission.
February 16th, 2010 at 2:05 pm
Hi, Diana
You said: ‘ I did mention the “love thy neighbour as thyself” several postings ago as, to me, it is the crux of Christianity and was referred to in the Bible as the most important commandment of all.’
Yes, it is part of Christ’s summation of the Law. But the first part is often left out – here’s the whole thing:
Matthew 22:38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”
‘It is how you live your life day to day and how you treat those with whom you come in contact which defines you as a true Christian, not constantly quoting reams of scripture’.
I agree. The reality of one’s profession of Christ will be manifested in Christ-like behaviour. But merely doing good to your neighbour doesn’t make one a Christian. It is faith and practise together that prove the reality.
‘In Christ’s day he and his followers met in the open air and did not have buildings in which to meet. Church buildings were built long after Christ died and he certainly did not judge people by whether they did or did not warmed a church pew on the sabbath. That might come as a bit of a shock to some people who consider themselves Christians. I spent years studying the history of Christianity as well as Christianity itself and much of what we have today has evolved over the centuries and has little to do with Christ’s original message’.
I couldn’t agree more. That’s why I have pointed Sophie back to the original Christian teaching on woman’s role in the home and church – the New Testament. No one has the right to call themselves Christian if they reject Christianity’s foundation documents.
February 16th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
Philip – that was so well worded. The word ‘submission’ has been drowned in modern connotations that probably didn’t previously exist. The thing is, we all submit every day and never object. We submit to the Government, to our bosses, to our friends. To submit to someone who loves you dearly, isn’t losing your dignity. And to serve someone and wash their feet isn’t a bad thing. Christ washed all the disciples feet. If you love a man, you’ll want to please him. If he loves you, he’ll want to please you. You choose who you marry – and as the old saying goes, ‘love conquers all.’ I don’t think the Bible is preaching a one way message – it’s saying, husbands love your wives and protect them. Wives, love your husbands and care about what they say. I care about what my boyfriend says, but I know he’s not going to ask me to do something that he knows I’ll get upset with him for, or that he wouldn’t want to do himself – cos he would love me as himself. He’s not going to chain me to the kitchen sink – cos he wants a companion to have fun with. I think it’s easy to misconstrue the real message – and the central message is love and respect.
February 16th, 2010 at 2:27 pm
Dr Draper said:
‘Ian, Hatred is your bitchy last remark ‘[No need to do anything special to get admittance to hell. A life of unbelief guarantees it.] ‘(and you xians are supposed to love?) although it wasnt actually a whole life of unbelief- I didnt give up on Christianity until I encountered those sainted evangelical men of St Nicholas’ Church, Miles Thomson and Angus Macleay. We seem to have come full circle.’
So telling people that a life of unbelief will put them in hell is an act of hatred? But that was the message of the Gospels, from both Jesus and the apostles, for example:
John 3:36 He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”
John 8:24 Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.”
The gospel message is that God has promised to forgive all who repent and believe in His Son. For those who don’t, God’s judgement is to come in eternity.
February 16th, 2010 at 3:12 pm
It upsets me when people narrow what should be spacious, darken what should be brilliant.
It’s the posters who show least respect for others who seem most certain that they’re good Christians. The scripture quoting “You’ll go to hell” ones who ignore other people’s sincerely held views, who doubt every other poster’s faith and who don’t seem to be able to state their case without anger or insult.
“No need to do anything special to get admittance to hell. A life of unbelief guarantees it”
“I seriously doubt your Christian profession..
“Give me an honest and hearty doubter any day, to that of a prig of a Papist or a poker faced Puritan!”
It’s all so ugly.
February 16th, 2010 at 4:21 pm
Sophie
What is insulting about “No need to do anything special to get admittance to hell. A life of unbelief guarantees it”?
Do you deny Christ and the apostles taught this?
Or are you saying they were insulting too?
???
February 16th, 2010 at 5:03 pm
Hmmm… I’m doing a U-turn and coming back to this thread. There are just too many interesting issues being discussed!
Sophie – When you say…
“I seriously doubt your Christian profession”
…are you saying that you do not believe that the individuals faithfully represent Christianity, or that you have misgivings about Christianity itself?
If it’s that you doubt the individuals’ Christianity, then I have to disagree with you. I think they are scripturally absolutely justified in proclaiming themselves Christians.
On the other hand, have you perhaps taken Christianity as a basis to enable you to lead a “good” life based on commonly accepted moral values. In doing so have you dispensed with those parts of the scriptures that require compliance with aspects that your internal moral compass cannot accept?
If so, don’t think for a minute that I would disagree with your stance. I think it’s a wholly admirable way to live. But could the only difference between you and me be that I have decided that I can retain this same moral compass, but without belief in the supernatural? Please do correct me if I am wrong.
I now embrace Humanism in place of Christianity, and I feel so liberated by this decision. I always struggled with the unpalatable and sometimes archaic requirements of this or any of the other major religions.
I initially missed the fellowship that belonging to a Church can bring, but there are a growing number of alternative altruistic non-religious communities, both virtual and real.
I would add that I don’t think we pose a serious threat to Christianity. Many people will always feel the need to believe in the supernatural. I suspect that competing religions pose far more of a real threat than we do!
If the webmaster will indulge me I will add the address at the end of this for my blog, which I hope offers more insight into my thoughts about Religion (particularly Christianity, but also Islam and others) and Humanism.
And it’s not all negative! I have not brought attention to it until now as it’s very much work in progress, and is perhaps more akin to me thinking aloud. It may however be helpful, and you’re all most welcome to visit and comment. (Comments will be moderated)
My blog is called “Simply Human” and is at:
http://simianimaginestheresnoheaven.blogspot.com/
Peace.
Jim
February 16th, 2010 at 5:47 pm
Jim – I didn’t write “I seriously doubt your Christian profession” I was quoting Raymond Stewart who attacked me in these words. How can someone who calls themselves a Christian define non-Christian as anyone who disagrees with them?
My comment was: “It’s all so ugly.” And it is.
February 16th, 2010 at 5:56 pm
Im afraid it’s easy for ‘someone who calls themselves a Christian define non-Christian as anyone who disagrees with them’: place fingers in ears, repeat ‘the Bible ‘s the WORD of GOD and it means what I say it does’ to yourself and others for as long as necessary; block out any other thought or response from others; job done.
February 16th, 2010 at 6:09 pm
Apologies Sophie. But I hope the argument remains valid, though with a different protagonist.
February 16th, 2010 at 7:29 pm
Jim – there doesn’t appear to be an email link on your blog. Am I being dim?
February 16th, 2010 at 8:57 pm
Ian, just to clarify my comments which I appreciate you referred to in a positive vein, I don’t believe that the essence of Christ’s reference to the “love your neighbour as thyself ” was to rush round “doing good” in the way many view it as an external activity, but to be a good person in a quiet way, which is altogether a different thing. A truly caring person does not have to trumpet their “good works” and draw attention to themselves but is respected and admired in the community for putting themselves out for others who might be in need. Christ reminded his followers to beware of the teachings of the Pharisees and the Sadducees, who were “the establishment” at that time and thought they could buy a ticket to heaven by carrying out certain rituals and chanting the scriptures in an empty and hollow manner. This had nothing to do with the Christianity that Christ brought to the world which was practical and about everyday life and human relationships.
February 16th, 2010 at 10:03 pm
Dear Jim, thank you for your reasons as to why you are not a believer. The ten U Tubes of your friend seeking to justify atheism were also interesting, though elementary and quite sad.
My one and only U Tube, is under the title: James Thompson – Animal Padre. Indeed, it certainly lacks their quality of presentation. However, I leave it to yourself to decide which one brings the most blessing, hope and assurance to those in times of extremity
The sun was out this morning and the birds were singing. How sad, not to be able to sing ‘with ten thousand voices’: Yes, ‘God made us all and God is good!’
February 16th, 2010 at 10:53 pm
Sophie,
I did previously state that I doubted your profession of Christianity because originally it was Satan who questioned
the inerrancy of God’s word. To some degree you have done
so indeed you have declared creation to be a myth and that god’s word, ‘the Bible was a collection of stories’. As Ian stated
you need to seriously look at what the spirit of God is saying
and get real ! Do you regard yourself as a sinner who needs to turn to God in repentance and faith ?
The Lord Jesus Christ said graciously ‘Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest’ Matthew 11 v 28. Are you labouring with a sinful heart ?
February 16th, 2010 at 10:57 pm
An old English preacher put it well when he spoke of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ ……………………………………
I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.” Galatians 1:12
When I speak of a revelation of Christ, I am not contending for anything visionary. Dreams, voices, appearances in the air, sights and sounds, crosses in the sky, and apparitions at the bedside, I must leave to others. I believe that for the most part they are the portion of visionaries and enthusiasts, for we have all these in the visible Church of God, as well as Pharisees and hypocrites, Arminians and Antinomians. I will not indeed deny that the Lord may have wrought by them in some peculiar instances, as in the cases of Augustine and Colonel Gardiner. But taking the generality of God’s people and the ordinary mode of divine operation, the revelation of Christ to the soul is a gracious internal discovery by the power of the Spirit, revealing him to the eyes of faith. Nothing is seen or heard by the bodily senses; and yet his glorious Person is as much seen, and his voice as much heard, as though eye and ear beheld his glory and listened to his words. It is altogether of grace, wholly heavenly and divine, and therefore nature, sense, and reason have no place here. It is a divine bringing into the heart of the power and presence, grace and glory, love and blood of Christ in a way that may be felt but never described. Under these spiritual operations and influences,—for it is the Spirit’s work to take of the things of Christ and reveal them to the soul; it is his covenant office to testify of Jesus,—under these sacred influences, divine anointings, and gracious operations, Christ is made known unto the heart and looked unto, according to his own word: “Look unto me and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth.”
February 17th, 2010 at 12:08 am
Sophie. No you’re not being dim. Just my inexperience with creating a blog. I’ve now added a “Contact me” link which should work.
February 17th, 2010 at 2:59 pm
I agree with all the Bible believing Christians . You know you either believe or you do not . These brave men[and Sisters to each other] who speak th truth in love[me too] we’re the ones who sometimes get the hate and the spite . No wonder Woolworths has closed due to the pick and mix ! Just like the values of the liberal do as you want – Thats why churches are closing . There are many churches in Africa and now in Britain increasing through the the true preaching of the Holy word. including the one mentioned . So sick are we of selfish feminism , hedonism – put the baby on the back burner , careers first . Abortions . trying to have babies after 40 etc , men ridiculed everywhere on most adverts . The Family and then young mail crime increases knifings , shootins etc = They don’t know there role in socity anymore .
And so the verse is true 2Tim 3 v 16 ;- ALL Scripture is given by Gods breath ,and useful for teaching correcting etc . Also Paul met Jesus and was totally transformed ! Read what to expect when You pick and mix the word of God 2Peter 3 v 16
LOVE IN TRUTH AND OBEDIENCE . John
February 17th, 2010 at 3:13 pm
And i totally applaud the Reverends mentioned and those letting the word do its work .
Its a pity more men did’nt have the backbone.
These brothers like me have seen that the last 40 years or so is just not working !
We see the results and debris all around.
Two young men interviewed on a bad estate said there is no one at home so we do anything we like.
The price of houses of dont help either of course!
I hate the feminists try to demonise a good ladies who choose to look after their children [ and see them grow up!]
I’ve recently bought a book called save the males , why its good for a woman to care . in it shows comments of certain feminists that actually said we must destroy marriage [ The Jezebel spirit]
God Help us all in the name of Jesus to come back to Love truth and obedience
Much love -John
February 17th, 2010 at 3:15 pm
Another new contributor- how lucky we are! ‘Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practise witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians’, Pat Robertson, US politican (and evangelist), 1992. I have the postcard.
February 17th, 2010 at 3:26 pm
Dear Doctor
Are male or female ?
I do not care if you are huminist or secular . but anyone could not fail to see the falling down of the fabric of society [Thatcher said there is no such thing] Even animmals love their young .
Its funny how you show this post card
You should read the book [written by a women-concerned very much for her sons ] I n it you will read how leading feminists have encouraged abortion to get divorced etc Which is sick and evil
Love JOHN
February 17th, 2010 at 3:35 pm
Dear DM Draper
Are you male or female? And is not a slur . But just curious.
And Thatcher said there is no such thing as society [Thank you Mr Darwin – but thats anther story
I pray God blesses you DM as he did the apostle Paul [ A man full of love mixed with truth and obedience
Love John
February 17th, 2010 at 3:39 pm
GM Draper says..‘Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practise witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians’, Pat Robertson, US politican (and evangelist), 1992. I have the postcard.
Quoting Pat Robinson as a respresentive of Christ, or the fount of Christian egalitarian theology, is akin to holding up Hilter as the founding member of humanists. ;o)
February 17th, 2010 at 4:43 pm
John,
Please tell me why it matters to you whether Dr Draper is male or female? I really should like to understand.
We are all human beings, deserving equal respect and dignity, and women and men can debate on entirely equal terms, so what difference does it make? How do you know what sex I am? I can call myself anything here, and it should not matter. It is surely only the wisdom, or otherwise, of my words that should matter.
And you are wrong about society. There were no “good old days”, no matter how comforting that thought might be. I grew up in a time of huge intolerance, bigotry, inequality and general ignorance. Thank goodness that our society is progressively becoming more enlightened. Yes, of course there are awful things being done by humans today, but that is nothing new. History is littered with crimes against fellow humans no less awful than anything happening today.
At least, today, many of those who are abused or who suffer unjust discrimination have more chance of natural justice and escape. (Except perhaps in some of the least enlightened religious and political backwaters).
What, for instance, is your view of the recent revelations of child molestation by Catholic priests in Ireland? I can assure you from personal expereince that this is nothing new! But at least now people are less scared of speaking out about such disgraceful abuse of trust.
Have a look back over your posts. You come across as a very angry and bitter person, who is unhappy with the World. Now, that may not be true, but that’s certainly the image you project. I do hope you can honestly tell me I’m wrong.
Finally, can you expand on your comment about it being a pity more men did not have the backbone ["to let the word do its work"]. Why is it more courageous to uphold the status quo than to dare to be different?
I am genuinely trying to understand. As you’ll see from my previous posts I really do care about the truth. We all have to live together on the Earth, and even if we do not all agree on spiritual and philosophical affairs, I would like to think we can treat each other with respect and courtesy.
Jim
February 17th, 2010 at 6:49 pm
Jim said to Sophie: ‘But could the only difference between you and me be that I have decided that I can retain this same moral compass, but without belief in the supernatural?’
Exactly. You have taken the logical step by abandoning any claim to the name of Christian. Your morality is of your own choosing and you are honest about it.
Rather than being incensed by this, as some might expect, Christians welcome honesty of heart. Such honesty will keep your mind open to the possibility that Christ is indeed real and that you were mistaken in your assessment of the Bible.
February 17th, 2010 at 6:51 pm
Diana said: ‘Christ reminded his followers to beware of the teachings of the Pharisees and the Sadducees, who were “the establishment” at that time and thought they could buy a ticket to heaven by carrying out certain rituals and chanting the scriptures in an empty and hollow manner. This had nothing to do with the Christianity that Christ brought to the world which was practical and about everyday life and human relationships.’
We certainly agree on all this. :0)
February 17th, 2010 at 6:56 pm
Raymond Stewart, you must be aware that theologians consider the Creation story a myth. The idea that it is literally true, while popular with the unsophisticated and the Religious Right, has not been taken seriously in the Church of England for a very long time.
Similarly, the idea that every word of the Bible is divinely inspired doesn’t hold up to even a brief examination. This is no big deal among educated Christians. Scholars, often devout Christians themselves, have painstakingly dated artefacts, compared sources and established the very human and varied nature of the documents that make up the library we call the Bible. I’m sure the Archbishop of Canterbury would agree with me.
But some people seem to have reverted to an almost medieval view of the Bible. I am alarmed by the emergence of what seems to be a sort of deliberate ignorance or blindness. This crass over-simplification is more than unhelpful. It leads to the silly situation where one person produces a quote from the Bible only to be trumped by the next person producing another which says the opposite.
The Bible needs interpretation. Reading it literally can only lead to confusion. Worse, in that those Christians who take what one might call the historical view and those who take the literal one cannot even debate to much benefit, as they have very little common ground.
I imagine this literal approach stems from a need for certainty. I would be more sympathetic if it didn’t have such ugly results. Fundamentalists of all faiths are generally characterised by self-righteousness and bigotry.
John, I’m glad you didn’t turn up until we were just about to turn out the lights, stack the chairs and go home. I suspect our reasonably polite exchange of views would have drowned in your semi-literate rage. Have you read what you write? I realise that, as Jim said, you must be very unhappy, but you should realise that you sound more like a Muslim fanatic than a follower of the Prince of Peace.
February 17th, 2010 at 7:05 pm
Dr Draper said: ‘Im afraid it’s easy for ’someone who calls themselves a Christian define non-Christian as anyone who disagrees with them’: place fingers in ears, repeat ‘the Bible ’s the WORD of GOD and it means what I say it does’ to yourself and others for as long as necessary; block out any other thought or response from others; job done.’
Yes, that could happen. But that is not what has occurred here. It’s not just Christians who can read the plain statements of Christ and the apostles and see they do not match the pick & mix theology presented by some here. Ordinary English comprehension is enough.
Words cannot mean just anything we want them to. If we don’t like what the words say, we should reject them – not pretend they mean something else.
Honest unbelievers like Jim are able to see the incompatibility of such theology with the Bible, and have chosen to drop their Christian tag.
Honest Christians believe the Bible and hold to their beloved’s Name.
February 17th, 2010 at 8:25 pm
Afraid I have to disagree with you Ian. Whether or not the Bible is inspired by God, it was written and compiled by fallible humans, and the fact that so many theologians spend so much time trying to interpret and explain some of the oddest parts must surely tell us something. Indeed it is not difficult to find numerous instances in the Bible where there are obvious contradictions.
There is surely a logical step from there to working out that God did not intend every verse to be taken literally. Jesus himself used parables to guide people. Is it not possible then to accept the validity of other parts of the scriptures in a similar way?
Is it even possible in 2010 for us to honestly follow the Bible literally in all respects? Exodus 20 v8 tells us that we must not labour on the Sabbath. Would you have civilisation completely shut down every seven days? – because that’s what it would mean! To take just a few implications – no electricity to keep severely ill patients alive, no heating in the Church. No emergency services for parishioners who have heart attacks? Is this what you want?
You may accuse me of playing foul, but do you see where I’m going? No-one can take every word in the Bible literally and live as a reasonable contributor to an advanced society. Did God not want us to progress? You would not be blogging now if you did not agree with progress!
Then all we are left to argue about is the extent to which we view some of the Bible as guidance rather than statements of fact. At one extreme you have people like me who reject the whole thing, and at the other the most fanatical religious fundamentalists. The rest of us are all somewhere in between. It’s simply a case of finding the position on that scale that works for you.
So, coming back to the start of the thread: Within the patriarchal society that existed when the Bible was written, a time during which it was universally accepted that wives were literally submissive to their husbands, then Christians would have no problem with this exhortation.
However, times have changed. Does that make the Bible irrelevant? Not at all. But we do have to apply the teaching contained in the Bible in a way which is appropriate to the advanced society in which we are npw lucky to live.
Jim
February 17th, 2010 at 9:01 pm
The Supremacy of God
In One Of His Letters to Erasmus, Luther said, “Your thoughts of God are too human.” Probably that renowned scholar resented such a rebuke, the more so, since it proceeded from a miner’s son. Nevertheless, it was thoroughly deserved. We, too, prefer the same charge against the vast majority of the preachers of our day, and against those who, instead of searching the Scriptures for themselves, lazily accept their teachings. The most dishonoring conceptions of the rule and reign of the Almighty are now held almost everywhere. To countless thousands, even professing Christians, the God of Scripture is quite unknown.
Of old, God complained to an apostate Israel, “Thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself” (Ps. 50:21). Such must now be His indictment against apostate Christendom. Men imagine the Most High is moved by sentiment, rather than by principle. They suppose His omnipotency is such an idle fiction that Satan can thwart His designs on every side. They think that if He has formed any plan or purpose at all, then it must be like theirs, constantly subject to change. They openly declare that whatever power He possesses must be restricted, lest He invade the citidel of man’s free will and reduce him to a machine. They lower the all-efficacious atonement, which redeems everyone for whom it was made, to a mere remedy, which sin-sick souls may use if they feel so disposed. They lessen the strength of the invincible work of the Holy Spirit to an offer of the Gospel which sinners may accept or reject as they please.
The god of this century no more resembles the Sovereign of Holy Writ than does the dim flickering of a candle the glory of the midday sun. The god who is talked about in the average pulpit, spoken of in the ordinary Sunday school, mentioned in much of the religious literature of the day, and preached in most of the so-called Bible conferences, is a figment of human imagination, an invention of maudlin sentimentality. The heathen outside the pale of christendom form gods of wood and stone, while millions of heathen inside christendom manufacture a god out of their carnal minds. In reality, they are but atheists, for there is no other possible alternative between an absolutely supreme God, and no God at all. A god whose will is resisted, whose designs are frustrated, whose purpose is checkmated, possesses no title to deity, and far from being a fit object of worship, merits nothing but contempt.
The supremacy of the true and living God might well be argued from the infinite distance which separates the mightiest creatures from the Creator. He is the Potter, they are but the clay in His hands, to be molded into vessels of honor or to be dashed into pieces (Ps. 2:9) as He pleases. Were all the denizens of heaven and all the inhabitants of earth to combine in open revolt against Him, it would cause Him no uneasiness. It would have less effect upon His eternal, unassailable throne than the spray of Mediterranean’s waves has upon the towering rocks of Gibraltar. So puerile and powerless is the creature to affect the Most High, Scripture tells us that when the Gentile heads unite with apostate Israel to defy Jehovah and His Christ, “He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh” (Ps. 2:4).
The absolute and universal supremacy of God is plainly affirmed in many Scriptures. “Thine, O LORD, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, O LORD, and thou art exalted as head above all . . . And thou reignest over all”
(1 Chron. 29:11-12). Note “reignest” now, not “will do so in the Millennium.” “O LORD God of our fathers, art not thou God in heaven? and rulest not thou over all the kingdoms of the heathen? and in thine hand is there not power and might, so that none [not even the Devil himself] is able to withstand thee”? (2 Chron. 20:6). Before Him presidents and popes, kings and emperors, are less than grasshoppers.
“But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth” (Job 23:13). My reader, the God of Scripture is no make-believe monarch, no imaginary sovereign, but King of kings, and Lord of lords. “I know that thou canst do everything, and that no thought of thine can be hindered” (Job 42:2); or, another translator, “no purpose of thine can be frustrated.” All that He has designed, He does. All that He has decreed, He perfects. All that He has promised, He performs. “But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased” (Ps. 115:3). Why has He? Because “there is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD” (Prov. 21:30).
God’s supremacy over the works of His hands is vividly depicted in Scripture. Inanimate matter, irrational creatures, all perform their Maker’s bidding. At His pleasure, the Red Sea divided and its waters stood up as walls (Ex. 14); the earth opened her mouth, and guilty rebels went down alive into the pit (Num. 14). When He so ordered, the sun stood still (Josh. 10); and on another occasion went backward ten degrees on the dial of Ahaz. To exemplify His supremacy, He made ravens carry food to Elijah (1 Kings 17); iron to float on the waters (2 Kings 6:5); lions to be tame when Daniel was cast into their den; fire to burn not when three Hebrews were flung into its flames. Thus, “Whatsoever the LORD pleased, that did he in heaven, and in earth, in the seas, and all deep places” (Ps. 135:6).
God’s supremacy is also demonstrated in His perfect rule over the wills of men. Ponder carefully Exodus 34:24. Three times in the year all the males of Israel were required to leave their homes and go up to Jerusalem. They lived in the midst of hostile people, who hated them for having appropriated their lands. What, then, was to hinder the Canaanites from seizing the opportunity, during the absence of the men, to enslave the women and children and take possession of their farms? If the hand of the Almighty was not upon the wills even of wicked men, how could He make this promise beforehand, that none should so much as “desire” their lands? “The king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water; He turneth it whithersoever he will” (Prov. 21:1).
But, some may object, do we not read again and again in Scripture how men defied God, resisted His will, broke His commandments, disregarded His warnings, and turned a deaf ear to all his exhortations? Certainly we do. Does this nullify all we have said? If so, then plainly the Bible contradicts itself. But that cannot be. What the objector refers to is simply the wickedness of men against the external word of God. We have mentioned what God has purposed in Himself. The rule of conduct He has given us to walk by is perfectly fulfilled by none of us. His own eternal counsels are accomplished to their minutest details.
The absolute and universal supremacy of God is affirmed with equal positiveness in the New Testament. We are told that God “worketh all things after the counsel of His own will” (Eph. 1:11)—the Greek for “worketh” means “to work effectually”. For this reason we read, “For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory forever. Amen” (Rom. 11:36). Men may boast they are free agents, with a will of their own, and are at liberty to do as they please. But Scripture says to those who boast, “we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell . . . ye ought to say, If the Lord will” (Jam. 4:13, 15).
Here then is a sure resting-place for the heart. Our lives are neither the product of blind fate nor the result of capricious chance. Every detail of them was ordained from all eternity and is now ordered by the living, reigning God. Not a hair of our heads can be touched without His permission. “A man’s heart deviseth his way, but the LORD directeth his steps” (Prov. 16:9). What assurance, what strength, what comfort this should give the real Christian! “My times are in thy hand” (Ps. 31:15). Then let me “Rest in the LORD, and wait patiently for him” (Ps. 37:7).
AW PINK – 1886- 1952
February 17th, 2010 at 9:39 pm
Hi all, I am sorry that I have come to this late and therefore apologise for the length of my post.
I just have some comments and/or questions for Dr. Draper, Sophie and Jim to try and help me understand your positions more clearly. I hope that is ok.
Many thanks.
Dr Draper
1.
The admissions policy of any school is directly related to the educational policy of the government as agreed with the Local Education Authority. Therefore whilst both schools, which are joined to the Church of England, have an admissions policy reflecting that, first, this is not going against a governmental or local education policy, second, the admissions policy places church attendance third onward on the list (1. being children in care and 2. siblings) and more especially it is not coercing parents to attend church, nor to send their children to those schools. Parents can exercise their choice, whether it is a limited one or not, and send their children to another primary or secondary school (Google informs me of 12 primary schools in the locality of Sevenoaks and 12 secondary schools [a mix of grammar and comprehensive] within the Sevenoaks, Tonbridge and Tonbridge Wells area – that is excluding private schools)
One of the problems you are highlighting is that ‘faith’ schools have become a victim of their own success. These schools do well both academically and pastorally with young people, parents want their children to go there, thus they have to go to the church linked with the school, thus people who don’t like the whole faith idea see it as coercion which of course it isn’t.
2.
I am surprised to see you so down on women raising children. I had imagined that from an evolutionary framework (I am presupposing that you hold to an evolutionary framework, my apologies if you don’t) the raising of children would be the highest form of good as it continues the propagation and protection of the species. Are you suggesting that this is not true?
3.
Your comments on the Old Testament and the stoning offences seem to indicate that you have not understood how the law works within the two Testaments, how it is perceived both positively and negatively in the New Testament, and how Jesus is the fulfillment of the law. There are a whole myriad of questions that need to asked and answered in relation to the law and a soundbite answer will be insufficient at this point.
4.
You need to distinguish between Scripture and the Word of God. Whilst there is much overlap between the two, they are also different. Read Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics on this. He is remarkably helpful in setting out the distinguishing features and the overlap.
5.
Your comments regarding Christians putting fingers in ears to block out what others are saying is quite unnecessary. When you have two people starting with different presuppositions in discussion you will find that it can take a long time to get past the initial not hearing/mishearing to actual listening. Therefore atheists are also quite capable of putting fingers in ears.
6. You cite what you think is right and wrong with this situation. But what is your authority by which you make this moral judgement on the Rev’s. in Sevenoaks?
Sophie
First, of all I would like to say that I am sorry for some of the comments that some people have made concerning you. They shouldn’t have been made, or at least the tone should have been made much clearer with some of the comments that were made.
1. I appreciate you being frustrated (I hope that is not putting words in your mouth) at being called a ‘pygmy’ and I don’t agree with the speaker. Yet, having said that, your comments about Jonathan Aitken, “I wouldn’t want to share air space with the man . . Had I betrayed my family and my country so comprehensively I’d be concentrating on repentance and restitution rather than seeking further publicity” are equally unkind. I think that he has shown repentance, even limited repentance, something which, it seems, other politicians have over the last few years singularly failed to do. What would he have to do that you would want to share air space with him and how are you coming to that moral judgment?
2. You are right to say that the Bible was written by flawed humans and also right to say that because something is old doesn’t make it true. My issue is that apply this to any document in history where there are no eyewitnesses to corroborate it and you conclude that you cannot trust any document in history for how do you prove a writing to be true based on the presupposition that it was written by flawed humans.
3. When you speak of some parts of the Bible being more reliable than others. How do you make the judgement? What is your authority to establish one part is more reliable than another and what should be done when you consider one aspect to be unreliable another considers it to be reliable?
4. You keep asking people not to refer to Scripture – I presume because you don’t consider it trustworthy – and then keep referring to Scripture (you talk of the woman taken in adultery and then write, “It’s not the only Biblical reference to this form of punishment.” Please would you be consistent – either Scripture can be quoted or it can’t be quoted.
5. I love your quote: “It upsets me when people narrow what should be spacious, darken what should be brilliant.” Is that yours or did you borrow it? And if it is yours can I use it?
Jim
1. You talk of “incurring the wrath of enlightened people.” What is an enlightened person? Who/What makes an enlightened person? How do you become an enlightened person?
2. What is your authority as an atheist for saying that bigotry, hatred and intolerance are wrong?
3. At one point you write, “Furthermore, in my World, there is no need for God, and I feel so liberated by that thought.” Yet earlier in the same post you write, “It might surprise you to know Pastor Thompson that sometimes I too am sorry that I am an atheist.” Can you just reconcile those two for me?
4. Your comment, “Do you not think it is wrong to regard women as defenseless or weaker forms of life?” needs some clarification. Such as ‘in which ways are/are not women defenceless?’, or ‘in which ways are women weaker forms of life?’ It would be helpful for you to clarify that if possible. I notice also that lots of other areas of life acknowledge a difference in physicality between men and women. The army do not let women serve on the front line with the infantry, and women are not allowed to undertake SAS selection. Likewise the Navy do not allow women to join the Royal Marine Commandos though they are able to undertake the All Arms Commando Course, and to this point one woman has passed it. In sports men and women are also separated in regards to their physicality, whether it be swimming, athletics, rowing, tennis (admittedly mixed doubles), or boxing. So even in a world without God men and women are separated in regards to physicality within the general spectrum. Does this mean that you boycott sports events where this happens, or write to the MOD to complain regarding women’s roles because if you don’t and you truly think that what has been said in Sevenoaks is wrong then you aren’t being consistent with your own view.
February 17th, 2010 at 10:13 pm
I give up. It’s like discussing the Moon landings with people who believe the world is flat. I’ll go hang out with the Archbishop of Canterbury and other dishonest Christians.
What I’ve been considering instead is what a lousy analogy the whole God/Church, Husband/Wife is. In fact the blokes in Sevenoaks may have hit on a good case for divorce – if not annulment, given the fact that one party’s now discorporate and the other’s a multitude:
“Your honour, I appreciate that He’s everywhere but in all the time we’ve been married I’ve never actually seen him. I sing, I pray, I speak to him but he never talks back. We don’t discuss anything – I get instructions in writing. I hold family celebrations but he never turns up. I’ve told him – being with us in spirit is no help when it comes to carving the turkey! And as for the physical side…”
As a recipe for marriage it’s a disaster, really. LOL
February 17th, 2010 at 11:01 pm
Ali,
I will try to answer your questions without writing another epistle:
1. An enlightened person is one who is well informed, tolerant, and guided by rational thought. And in case you ask, wrath is not the same as intolerance. What is your point?
2. I do not say this just as an atheist. I say it as a human. Do you disagree that they are wrong? Again, what is your point?
3. Yes I can. The word “sometimes” is the key one. If you asked me what %age of the time I felt liberated and what %age sorry, then I would say over 90% of the time I feel liberated. I would have to be an unthinking machine to be free of all doubts. Ultimately, the things I miss about religion do not adequately compensate for the things I do not miss. Sometimes I envy devout believers their apparent certainty, but I know that is not something that works for me. I cannot lie to myself or others about my lack of faith, so the Church is not an option for me.
4. Once and for all, this has nothing to do with physical prowess, as we enter the second decade of the 21st Century. Even assuming it did, would you seriously suggest that ALL women are by definition weaker and more defenseless than men? I would certainly hope not! So why would any rational person promote this as an all encompassing world view?
I’ve just been watching the Women’s downhill at the Olympics. Although I was in the infantry for a number of years I can confidently tell you I would never be able to match their physical prowess.
So we are left with mental abilities. Can anyone seriously say that women as a group are weaker or more defenceless than men. Not in my experience. Indeed one could argue for the mental superiority of women. Men have such pathetically vulnerable egos.
February 18th, 2010 at 12:19 am
Dear Jim
Just a short reply ;
a] Iam not bitter , but a loving man who is very concerned for the family – Knowing that society suffers [ I live in this type of urban area] You know if you met my mother and sister they would tell you the same . I am angry yes , at the constant pc on the news . saying young people need jobs when really [ like my history] young men need to channel their energy into some good work [ Ask an retired police man who has'nt been feminised , and he will tell you 90% of all the violence is from young men [ no hope no goal. They need to think they are working hard for a family . But with this man hating feminised lesbian society what do we have campaigns to put ladies on building sites ?!
I pray you try to understand me
b] Why did i ask if the GP was male or female ?
Well it really did’nt matter to either way Jim. As i said i was curious . As some people do hide behind a title [ I have one too, but, prefer not to have it] so as to make their argument is coming from a profesional male so we all. And obviously if the doctor was a feminist woman etc then you would only hear one side.
c] I agree with you over the abuse . But it seems that humanist/seculists will always try to paint that one on all Christians [Although im sure you were not] but as the Holy word says Jim 1Timothy4 verses 1-3 Talks about the last days and and that some churches will forbid to marry [ this certainly is not helping] Also Christ said many shall come in my name [false ones]
d] Well the good old days if you read what i said originally is certainally better than now. Old folks afraid to go out . I heard gun shots last night and found out today that a young man is again critical.
I could go on …..
e] More men with backbone Jim , because thats were the church has been weak . Some have been afraid to speak the truth in love for fear of losing a couple of seats in the chapel [Thank God we are waking up and having the courage] You know anyone can go with what itching ears want to hear
I applaud you in your search for peace ,That will only come when you submit all your past in repentance to Christ And give him your future.
The Word tells that he will come back soon too
.
Also Jim you wrote in your last entry about women in the physical. Well just some recent reports that 100 women have been sent home from the war because they gor pregnant [ one way to come home eh?]
Also another report says that are twice as likely to suffer the stress disorder.
Also a ritired policeman i know told me the wont put a lady in a dangerous situation [ Thats sexist] even though they are payed the same . I say this as a Gentle man and love for them .They should not be there in the first place . aLSO IF YOU LOOK AT THE iRAN HOSTAGE SITUATION- This is really not beneficial.
Much Peace and protection to you all . God bless
February 18th, 2010 at 12:39 am
Dear Sophie
How disgusting of you Sophie to even begin to call me a muslim fanatic.
this is what happens when the truth hits a nerve . When it resorts to slurs and insults with no answers
Are you another woman cannot understand a passsionate loving man.
Read the book I mentioned wrote by a woman scared for her sons future.
I forgive you
Love and blessings
February 18th, 2010 at 9:30 am
Hi Jim,
Thanks for your answers.
I think that the point to my first two questions is one of authority. Whilst you have answered my questions to some extent you do not answer by which authority you make those judgements and decisions as to what constitutes someone who is enlightened, nor how you can say bigotry etc is morally wrong.
To my understanding your definitions are, at the end of the day, your own presuppositions of what is right/wrong, good/bad. Therefore, you need to explain why your definitions are the correct ones and why they are better definitions than someone who may not agree with you but who may also be well informed, tolerant and guided by rational thought. (This also sets off a whole set of other questions such as ‘how well informed, tolerant and guided by rational thought do you have to be to be considered enlightened?’ – is there a spectrum and in that case, ‘who makes that judgement as to where you are on the spectrum?’. Also ‘In which areas do you have to be well informed etc. to be considered enlightened?’).
Therefore drawing this back into the original discussion; on what authority are you deciding that this vicar and curate are wrong? On what authority are you suggesting that the vicar and curate are not well informed, tolerant, and guided by rational thought (I have made a presumption here so feel free to shoot me down if it is a wrong one)? Is it your own? If so, why is your well informedness, tolerance and rational thought better than theirs? It also raises, to my mind, two other questions. The first is, I am presuming you have listened to the sermons either first hand or online. The second is, are you/will you be speaking with the vicar/curate face to face? Only by spending time with them and having opportunity to ask many questions will you hear in their words and see in their lives whether they are or are not well informed, tolerant and guided by rational thought.
Regarding my question about women.
First, it does have to do with physical prowess as it is impossible to separate someone up into their constituent parts, one of the curses of modernity is to try to compartmentalize everything to the nth degree. Thus, I want to affirm your view about women’s mental and intellectual capacities and also add in emotional and many other strengths.
Second, no I am not suggesting that ‘ALL women are by definition weaker and more defenseless than men’ hence I talked of physicality within a general spectrum (in the same way nor would I make the general statement that ‘men have pathetically vulnerable egos’, some might but again it will be on a spectrum). That is, there will be some women who are physically more able than many men and yet even those women will still not be able to compete with the top men in the same discipline, hence my point about both the military and sport.
Neither of these institutions are religious, though there are still ties between the military and the Church, yet both see a difference between men and women and no one complains about it. I have yet to see a someone in the military complain that a woman only has to do 21 press ups for a basic physical standard and that the men have to do 44 (other than the tom wishing he could do 21 and get it over and done with). The same with sport.
Yet, when someone in the church says something regarding differences between men and women everyone is up in arms and saying how awful it is that someone can say these things in the 21st Century.
February 18th, 2010 at 11:24 am
Ali,
As a non religious person I should have thought that it was obvious that I am my own authority. I express my own opinions. Self-evidently I also believe they are enlightened, but you or anyone else is free to disagree. I try to argue from a position of integrity, clarity rationality and fairness, but like everyone else I am fallible. If you disagree with anything I say, might I suggest you say why you think differently, rather than arguing about semantics.
Yes I have listened to sermons on the website. However, the comments on this blog were initiated not as a direct result of the sermons but by the reactions of other bloggers. Ultimately it is immaterial what the vicar said in his sermon. The arument has gone beyond that.
To address your implied question though, it is my opinion that anyone who preaches domination/submission (in which ever way you interpret this) between the sexes is not enlightened. If you disagree tell me why. If it is because you interpret the Bible literally, then we have no common ground and this argument is probably pointless.
Regarding women and physical prowess, we disagree. I do not think physical prowess is what this is about. You appear to do so. In Biblical times physical prowess would have been important, but today it is irrelevant.
Actually people DO complain, both in the Church and in the Armed Forces about the different way women are treated, but that is beside the point.
To support your statement in the concluding paragraph you must tell us why you think we are wrong to be “up in arms”.
Could I suggest you explain your position on this, rather than limit yourself to picking apart the positions of others. Then we can have a discussion rather than a one sided attempt to score points.
February 18th, 2010 at 4:12 pm
Ali – I’m not responding to your other points – it’s all been said – but I felt it was worth explaining why I disapprove so strongly of Jonathan Aitken’s lectures.
It was Jonathan Aitken’s arrogance and love of the public eye that caused his downfall in the first place. This is a man who lied and stole in the pursuit of power and influence. His pride landed him in prison.
It seems transparent to me that the last thing such a man would do is return to a public platform. This is not someone who see their mistakes or repents his flaws. He’s still publicizing the Great Jonathan Aitken – only now it’s the “New Reformed Jonathan Aiken!” He’s not sorry, he’s still a shameless self-promoter and I won’t give him the encouragement of an audience.
Compare him to the MP John Profumo who (after scandal wrecked his career) cleaned loos for charity, repaired his marriage and avoided publicity like the plague. One can only respect such conduct.
February 18th, 2010 at 4:35 pm
Amen to Sophie. Aitken has been twice been invited by some of the churches in Sevenoaks to lecture the rest of us on being christians, the event being publicised and tickets sold by St Nicholas’ church. There was no evidence of repentance or restitution followng his conversion: he was here (first occasion) to publicise his new private prisons intitaive which, luckily for the incarcerated, seems not to have taken off. St Nicholas’ church office, selling the tickets, was unwilling or unable to say what his fees or expenses for appearing were, but he certainly gets about on the fundamentalist christian circuit.
February 18th, 2010 at 7:46 pm
Jim
Thanks for another thoughtful post.
‘Afraid I have to disagree with you Ian. Whether or not the Bible is inspired by God, it was written and compiled by fallible humans’
But fallible humans kept from error in this particular task, by the power of the Holy Spirit:
2 Peter 1:20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
‘and the fact that so many theologians spend so much time trying to interpret and explain some of the oddest parts must surely tell us something.’
It tells us that not all of the Bible is equally easy to interpret. Just as, for example, your posts here are pretty easy to understand and only a perverse person would take other than the obvious meaning – yet if you went on to speak of complex emotional/mental/spiritual issues or made reference to an historic event little known to the rest of us, then we might debate your meaning in various parts. We would need to review ALL you said on the matter and try to ‘triangulate’ for the full truth.
‘Indeed it is not difficult to find numerous instances in the Bible where there are obvious contradictions.’
I would say, APPARENT contradictions. Again, just as might arise if we looked at your autobiography – some things might seem contradictory, but only because we don’t have all the details.
‘There is surely a logical step from there to working out that God did not intend every verse to be taken literally.’ Jesus himself used parables to guide people. Is it not possible then to accept the validity of other parts of the scriptures in a similar way?’
Certainly. And no one has said every verse is to be taken literally. Quite the reverse – the metaphor is to understood as metaphor, the historical narrative as historical narrative, etc. The problem arises when people don’t like what is plainly said and so then claim it is meant metaphorically. That is just being dishonest. Either accept the historical narrative as such or say it is mistaken, but don’t try to pass it off as parable/metaphor.
‘Is it even possible in 2010 for us to honestly follow the Bible literally in all respects?’
Of course not. Not in 2010 nor at any time since it was written. It does not want us to take it literally in all respects. It wants us to take it as it was meant to be understood.
‘Exodus 20 v8 tells us that we must not labour on the Sabbath. Would you have civilisation completely shut down every seven days? – because that’s what it would mean! To take just a few implications – no electricity to keep severely ill patients alive, no heating in the Church. No emergency services for parishioners who have heart attacks? Is this what you want?’
Even when the Sabbath was given, it did not require a full shut-down. Deeds of necessity and mercy were mandated to continue. But I must also point out that the Mosaic Sabbath was for those under the Mosaic Law, not for those in the New Covenant age.
‘You may accuse me of playing foul, but do you see where I’m going? No-one can take every word in the Bible literally and live as a reasonable contributor to an advanced society. Did God not want us to progress? You would not be blogging now if you did not agree with progress!’
Yes, as I said above, no one is saying otherwise. The problem is that rather than ‘No-one can take every word in the Bible literally’, the reverse is being pushed: ‘No-one can take ANY word in the Bible literally.’ That is just as idiotic as the former.
‘Then all we are left to argue about is the extent to which we view some of the Bible as guidance rather than statements of fact. At one extreme you have people like me who reject the whole thing, and at the other the most fanatical religious fundamentalists. The rest of us are all somewhere in between. It’s simply a case of finding the position on that scale that works for you.’
Well, it is more than that. It is a matter of determining what the Bible is saying, what it meant us to understand by its words. We can then accept or reject that. But it is totally dishonest to try to make it say what it plainly does not, so that one can continue the pretence that one is a follower of Christ. Leaving aside the complex bits that are open to honest dispute, the plain parts are enough to demand an full acceptance or rejection of it as the word of God.
Plain parts such as Paul’s teaching on the relationship between the husband and wife and the role of the woman in the Church. If it is the word of God, then we should observe it. If it is the fallible word of men, we are free to accept or reject whatever bits we like.
‘So, coming back to the start of the thread: Within the patriarchal society that existed when the Bible was written, a time during which it was universally accepted that wives were literally submissive to their husbands, then Christians would have no problem with this exhortation.
However, times have changed. Does that make the Bible irrelevant? Not at all. But we do have to apply the teaching contained in the Bible in a way which is appropriate to the advanced society in which we are npw lucky to live.’
You would have a point if Paul based his teaching on women on the cultural norms back then. But he based them instead on the creation ordinances of the Bible, for example:
1 Timothy 2:12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
Either Paul was mistaken, a man merely of his time, or he spoke by the inspiration of the Spirit and delivered to us the will of God for our lives. Unbelievers will logically take the first option. Believers have absolutely no excuse for doing the same.
February 18th, 2010 at 8:45 pm
Thank you for your equally thoughtful reply Ian. I think there is a third option for the interpretation of your last paragraph: I do think Paul was a man of his time, and I also think that he genuinely felt inspired by the will of God.
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that God does exist, and that Paul was enabled by him to deliver His will: It is clear from the text of Paul”s letters that are reproduced in the Bible that there are some parts which are secular in nature. Among many, take for instance 2 Timothy 4 v19-21. How can those verses be construed as delivering the will of God to us in 2010?
If we agree that there are parts of Paul’s letters which are not specifically intended as God inspired guidance to those of us who read those words 2000 years later, then surely we are left with determining which parts are and which are not. Different Christians hold different views. Does that make those who do not prescribe exactly to your view not Christians?
You have agreed with me in your post above that we cannot follow the Bible literally in all respects. Again we are back to arguing which parts we must follow and which we need not follow, are we not? Do you see my problem? As I have previously pointed out, at one extreme there are those who interpret everything literally, and at the other those who accept the teachings of Christ but regard other parts of the Bible as complementary stories which provide and spiritual, moral and practical guidance.
I do not seek to undermine your religion. I do seek to understand what motivates people to be Christians, and why there are significant differences between the beliefs of Christians of various denominations. I am fortunate that my non-belief makes the task of explaining my World view very simple. Conversely you only have to read some of the posts on this blog alone to see how confusing your religion is to an outsider.
February 18th, 2010 at 9:03 pm
Actually I missed an important point. Regarding your quote (1 Tomothy 2:12 – That as you’re aware is at the heart of how this thread started? I note that Paul uses the word “I” rather than “God”. Why can we not assume that this was a personal view held by Paul? Paul was surely fallible, even if inspired by God.
February 19th, 2010 at 5:17 pm
I cannot let this complete misdirection continue.
Jim, if you seek to understand Christianity you need to appreciate that Ian Major’s view is idiosyncratic and entirely his own. It’s certainly not the position of the Church of England.
The row about the Sevenoaks sermon falls into perspective when you remember that those involved belong to a pressure group campaigning against women bishops. The majority of the Church of England, far from wanting women to be silent, want them as bishops, even archbishops.
By Ian Stewart’s definition the Archbishop of Canterbury isn’t a Christian, which gives you some idea of how extreme Ian’s views are.
February 19th, 2010 at 6:58 pm
Hi Ian,
Jim said:
‘and the fact that so many theologians spend so much time trying to interpret and explain some of the oddest parts must surely tell us something.’
You replied:
It tells us that not all of the Bible is equally easy to interpret. Just as, for example, your posts here are pretty easy to understand and only a perverse person would take other than the obvious meaning – yet if you went on to speak of complex emotional/mental/spiritual issues or made reference to an historic event little known to the rest of us, then we might debate your meaning in various parts. We would need to review ALL you said on the matter and try to ‘triangulate’ for the full truth.
*****************
I thought Jim WAS discussing complex emotional/mental/spiritual issues, and the fact that his posts are easy to understand is because they describe these complexities in clear and unambiguous terms. Why does the Bible have to make these things so opaque and prone to misinterpretation? If the Bible was inspired by God it appears that he didn’t do a very good job!
And this “triangulation” you propose, often just makes it even more difficult to interpret – As Jim says, the Bible contains many contradictions – and they are clearly real contradictions, not “apparent” contradictions as you suggest.
February 19th, 2010 at 7:33 pm
what does it matter wher god exists. We are a christian Country and from small babes we were taught about God the Father, God the Son and God the holy Ghost. We were taught to have faith. Faith in what. Faith to each beleive that there is something better after life no matter what. The mind is very powerful and to beleive in something , the mind strenthens our thoughts and allows us to face whatever is in store. The people of ouer christian country should hold our beliefs together, hold on to our christian beleifs or teachings, because, if we keep pulling in numerous different ways instead of being strong and united, as are the Muslims, then, one day, we shall find ourselves overtaken by the strongest and Christianity will fade away into the background. I don’t need to write long paragraphs of dictation regarding our bible, lets keep it simple. I am so pleased our bishops at last, are taking a stance and speaking up for the ordinary person in the street who dare not open their mouths using THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH LAW, for fear of being deemed racists. Come on back our christian society instead of pulling it apart. Think of your grandchildren and greats because it will be them that will have to deal with the consequences of our generation being weak.
February 19th, 2010 at 7:39 pm
Now now children play nicely.
February 19th, 2010 at 7:47 pm
Hi Charlotte,
There are no contraditions in the Scriptures that good biblical exegesis cannot address.
Hi Jim,
Could you perhap clarify and support your statement, by naming exactly which theologians you are referring to, and to which verses and contradictions, obviously there will be different intrepretations of eschatological passages.
However, like all disciplines theology is built upon, and many go off on tangents, Spong is a prime example!! and yet we are so blessed to have the likes of Tom Wright, who in my opinion is one of our greatest living theologian.
Yet, so much it is still peripheral, because really all we need to do is look to the Nicene Creed. In it we see the full revelation of the Almighty God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, as revealed through the Scriptures, and passed down from the Apostles and the Church Fathers, and even to this day, it is the tenets of our faith.
The rest is just fodder for bickering. :0)
February 19th, 2010 at 8:33 pm
Jim
‘I think there is a third option for the interpretation of your last paragraph: I do think Paul was a man of his time, and I also think that he genuinely felt inspired by the will of God.’
Feeling inspired gives no one the right to mandate their views on others. If Paul was not actually divinely inspired to bring us God’s will on these matters, he was deluded. Why would anyone then take seriously anything he said – or what any of the Biblical writers said?
‘Let’s assume for the sake of argument that God does exist, and that Paul was enabled by him to deliver His will: It is clear from the text of Paul’’s letters that are reproduced in the Bible that there are some parts which are secular in nature. Among many, take for instance 2 Timothy 4 v19-21. How can those verses be construed as delivering the will of God to us in 2010?’
Let’s see what those verses teach:
’2 Timothy 4:19 Greet Prisca and Aquila, and the household of Onesiphorus. 20 Erastus stayed in Corinth, but Trophimus I have left in Miletus sick.
21 Do your utmost to come before winter.
Eubulus greets you, as well as Pudens, Linus, Claudia, and all the brethren.’
Was this instruction and comment intended for the whole Church? Obviously not. How do we know? By ordinary common sense – the same sense we apply in reading anyone else’s letters today. If a letter is addressed to an individual, as this one was, we may expect it to include material specific to that individual only, in addition to whatever the writer wants him to pass on to others.
To think all of it must apply to everyone or all of it to the individual is to make the same mistake as thinking all of the Bible must be taken literally or all metaphorically. No one ever took either of those positions.
‘If we agree that there are parts of Paul’s letters which are not specifically intended as God inspired guidance to those of us who read those words 2000 years later, then surely we are left with determining which parts are and which are not.’
Indeed. But it is not a theological struggle – it is mere common sense. What would we say today if anyone disputed, say, an Allied commander’s instruction to a subordinate to deploy all his men to a training ground, and include a call to give his kids a big hug from Uncle Leroy? Would we think them raising complex issues – or recommend them for remedial learning?
‘Different Christians hold different views. Does that make those who do not prescribe exactly to your view not Christians?’
Not necessarily. Depends on what they hold. If they differ on what Paul meant by his ban on women in the pastorate, then they are just guilty of imposing their cultural views on the Bible. A serious offence, but not fatal.
If they hold that Christ did not die as our substitute, or that He did not rise physically from the dead, then they have denied the faith and are indeed not Christian.
‘You have agreed with me in your post above that we cannot follow the Bible literally in all respects. Again we are back to arguing which parts we must follow and which we need not follow, are we not?’
Indeed. Though I must point out that whatever was taught metaphorically – the bread and wine as His body, for example – must be kept in the intended manner. It is a command, not a suggestion.
‘Do you see my problem? As I have previously pointed out, at one extreme there are those who interpret everything literally, and at the other those who accept the teachings of Christ but regard other parts of the Bible as complementary stories which provide and spiritual, moral and practical guidance.’
As I pointed out, there is no one who who interprets everything literally, any more than those who interpret everything metaphorically. The only issue is what bits are meant to be taken as plain language. And I’m saying that the bits under discussion here are obviously meant to be taken plainly. Indeed, those who say they are not meant for today do not base their case on them being metaphorical but on the basis Paul was mistaken.
‘I do not seek to undermine your religion. I do seek to understand what motivates people to be Christians, and why there are significant differences between the beliefs of Christians of various denominations.’
Most of the differences do not relate to literal versus metaphorical, but to more complex issues – whether children are part of the New Covenant community as they were of the Old Covenant community, for example (Baptism). The woman’s role issue is not such an issue, for it exists merely on the basis of some not wanting to accept a plain teaching of Scripture. Same with the claim that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality.
‘I am fortunate that my non-belief makes the task of explaining my World view very simple. Conversely you only have to read some of the posts on this blog alone to see how confusing your religion is to an outsider.’
I appreciate how the outsider sees a mess. I say to all such, examine the claims for yourself ; go to the Bible and see what it says, rather than think both sides must have good grounds for their beliefs.
February 19th, 2010 at 8:39 pm
Jim
‘Actually I missed an important point. Regarding your quote (1 Tomothy 2:12 – That as you’re aware is at the heart of how this thread started? I note that Paul uses the word “I” rather than “God”. Why can we not assume that this was a personal view held by Paul? Paul was surely fallible, even if inspired by God.’
Paul was teaching here, and so kept from error. All of the apostles received this unction from God.
That he was giving God’s command and not just his own opinion is evident from the context:
1 Timothy 2:11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
Note the command – ‘Let a woman learn in silence with all submission.’ and the closing justification from the OT.
February 19th, 2010 at 8:49 pm
Sophie said:
‘Jim, if you seek to understand Christianity you need to appreciate that Ian Major’s view is idiosyncratic and entirely his own. It’s certainly not the position of the Church of England.’
My view is THE historic view of the Church. That the present CoE has deserted that is not my problem. Many of its leaders have deserted some of the very foundation teachings of the faith, not just this lesser issue.
‘The row about the Sevenoaks sermon falls into perspective when you remember that those involved belong to a pressure group campaigning against women bishops. The majority of the Church of England, far from wanting women to be silent, want them as bishops, even archbishops.’
You may well be right. Just says how far the CoE has fallen. Why true Christians still remain there is a puzzle to me.
‘By Ian Stewart’s definition the Archbishop of Canterbury isn’t a Christian, which gives you some idea of how extreme Ian’s views are.’
He is a Christian in the sense that Honecker, the former leader of the German Democratic Republic, was a democrat. So, he is not a Christian. My Anglican friends say the same, and so does history.
February 19th, 2010 at 9:17 pm
Hi Charlotte
‘I thought Jim WAS discussing complex emotional/mental/spiritual issues, and the fact that his posts are easy to understand is because they describe these complexities in clear and unambiguous terms.’
I meant not comment on our understanding of these, but direct teaching on them.
‘Why does the Bible have to make these things so opaque and prone to misinterpretation? If the Bible was inspired by God it appears that he didn’t do a very good job!’
Good point. Perhaps God meant us to depend on Him for understanding, not merely on our intellect. He did give us plenty of plain instruction to get on with, but has reserved deeper matters for prayerful meditation.
‘And this “triangulation” you propose, often just makes it even more difficult to interpret’
Such is the way of real study. Not everything is on the surface. But if we refuse to obey the plain teachings, why should we get uptight about the hard things?
‘As Jim says, the Bible contains many contradictions – and they are clearly real contradictions, not “apparent” contradictions as you suggest.’
That is the debate. No Christian can accept that there are contradictions, for it is the Word of God, not of man. But unbelievers obviously will be inclined to take any apparent contradiction as a real one. What they should do is to remember ordinary events also have apparent contradictions – until the full facts emerge. That is what Christians claim about the ‘contradictions’ in Scripture. And we have been able to answer many of them already. Check out:
http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/bible_contradictions.htm
February 19th, 2010 at 11:29 pm
Caral,
As you are probably aware, I have not studied theology. I am a simple rationalist looking in from the outside and this is all relatively new to me. So the theologians you quote are not familiar to me. I find myself asking why there is a need for theologians to explain the Bible. Why did God not inspire the writing of the Bible in such a way that ordinary people could understand it without the need for professional interpreters. Even in modern translations there are still so many verses that make little sense unless “interpreted.”
I will put together a long list of contradictions if you like, though I am sure you are already aware of many, and the exegesis by theologians which explain them away. A simple selection of a few passages causing confusion are listed, for example, at: http://www.evilbible.com/contradictions.htm
- Unfortunate name for the website but the list is laid out quite succinctly. A quick internet search will provide many, many more examples. How then are we to assume that the Gospels are reliable when there are so many errors, and so many passages that are open to different interpretations?
Thanks for your reply Ian.
You talk of common sense as being the way to determine fact (from fable. ) It is my contention that common sense (as in sound practical sense) has to be suspended as soon as you accept belief in the supernatural at the core of your creed. Without absolute faith in something that defies logic, the whole edifice falls apart. There is nothing rational about the existence of God. So I’m not convinced that common sense is a certain guide.
Talking of exegesis, how are we to interpret Mark 16:17-18? This is reported in Mark’s gospel as the words of Jesus himself. Amongst other things he says that deadly poison will not hurt at all those who believe. Surely we are not expected to take this literally?
February 20th, 2010 at 8:35 am
Hi Jim,
Thanks for your reply, I did know that you not studied theology, but apologies for assuming that you had read around it.
Jim, I am so sorry, but I couldn’take the website you referred me to seriously, but I don’t think you expected me too.
)
I too, did some searching, and as I said all passages can be addressed by good biblical exegesis or hermeneutics, yet I did find one contradiction, and that was Acts 7:16 when comparing to Joshua 24.
I think that the problem that you are experiencing of why do we need theologians and teachers, for an academic viewpoint, perhaps the same question could be asked of philosophers, and even the physical sciences? The answer will alwaysbe the same, man’s quest for knowledge, theology was the Queen of the Sciences, for centuries.
Sacred texts written in languages that not many of us speak, (my koine Greek is not that hot, let alone my Aramaic..lol!) needs tranlating and intrepreting, remember the bible is most abused set of writings ever, it has been chopped up, hacked to bits, sometimes reguritated into piffle, and yet it has remained as he greatest story ever told. The bible can be easily intrepreted even as a layman applying literalism because at the crux, the Scriptures reveals man’s redemption. This revelation is only made possible by God Himself, through the quickening and enlightening of the human spirit by the Holy Spirit. The whole Scriptures points to the person, Jesus Christ, who is Salvation, God the Son, and the Son of Man. The bible speaks of the unquenchable love of God to humankind. His love knows no limits. The bible gives us knowledge of Him. The Christ, the Messiah, Yeshua, and His passion, His mercy, and His Grace. For me, when I read about my Lord, I look into the face of perfect Altruism, perfect Love, perfect peace and perfect mercy, because of His sacrifice, we receive His love and His life and His peace.
I loved this comment by a friend, who teaches post grad theology…
“I am not saying that the scriptural account of Jesus is not of profound importance, but it is eventually inadequate to ‘explain’ Jesus – in spite of the bold efforts of the writer to the Gospel of John.”
February 20th, 2010 at 11:01 am
Thank you all for your sincere and thought provoking responses to my questions. I have really appreciated the opportunity to discuss them.
So where do I stand now? Well, I think perhaps I have been forced to confront what conscientious adherance to the teachings in the Bible requires. I was brought up in a more liberal Christian tradition. The gap between that and Humanism is arguably just one (crucial) factor – faith in, and worship of, a supernatural Being. There are countless citizens in the UK who put “CofE” on the census form, because they accept the moral guidance of Christianity they were taught at school; but very few ever step inside a Church, let alone understand what they have signed up to.
The more strict interpretation of the Bible, promoted by some contributors here and in UK Church groupings such as Reform, is a very much tougher position to sustain in 2010. I think that the organised Church can be a force for good, and as I have said elsewhere, I have a great deal of respect for the practical charitable acts carried out by many religiously motivated people. But I believe that ever more “casual Christians” will turn away from the Church as a result of such things as the reporting of the views of Angus MacLeay and others. I do understand why people such as MacLeay view the way the Church of England is going as duplicitous and unsound. But utimately I think that this uncompromising position will hasten the eventual demise of the Church, in the UK at least.
So what should I, and people like me, do about this? Well, if we are to be true to our Humanist ideals, we should seek to provide an alternative home for disaffected Christians. Whilst I cannot agree with Barbara MacNicholas’ conclusions above, I do share her fear of the vacuum potentially created by the drift away from Christianity. The worst possible outcome would be a growth of other religions such as Islam.
Christians understandably quote the Bible to add authority to their arguments. My authority comes from within, but I will end by quoting one of my personal heroes, A.C. Grayling:
“[Humanism is] about the value of things human.
Its desire to learn from the past, its exhortation to courage in the present, and its espousal of hope for the future, are about real things, real people, real human need and possibility, and the fate of the fragile World we share. It is about human life; it requires no belief in an afterlife. It is about this World; it requires no belief in an afterlife. It requires no commands from divinities, no promises of reward or threats of punishment, no myths, no rituals, either to make sense of things or to serve as a prompt to the ethical life. It requires only open eyes, sympathy and the kindness it prompts, and reason.”
A.C. Grayling – “The Alternative: Humanism”
That, if you like, is my creed.
Jim
February 20th, 2010 at 1:13 pm
“It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” John 6:63
It is through the word that the soul in the first instance is cleansed. It is by the word that the soul is begotten again unto eternal life. It is, too, by the word applied to the heart that the blessed Spirit from time to time keeps alive communion with the Lord Jesus Christ. Is it not so in vital experience? Some passage of Scripture drops into the soul, some promise comes warm into the heart, and as it comes it makes way for itself. It enters the heart, breaks down the feelings, melts the soul, and draws forth living faith to flow unto and centre alone in the “altogether lovely.” There are many times and seasons when the word of God is to us a dead letter; we see and feel no sweetness in it. But there are other times, through mercy, when the word of God is made sweet and precious to us; when we can say, with the prophet of old, “Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart” (Jer. 15:16). It was so in the case of David. He says, they are “more to be desired than gold, yea, than much fine gold; sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb” (Psalm 19:10). When this is felt, the sure effect is to bring the soul into communion with the Lord Jesus, who is the true word of God, and makes use of the written word to draw us near unto himself.
J.C. Philpot – 1802-1869
February 20th, 2010 at 5:16 pm
Jim
‘You talk of common sense as being the way to determine fact (from fable. ) It is my contention that common sense (as in sound practical sense) has to be suspended as soon as you accept belief in the supernatural at the core of your creed. Without absolute faith in something that defies logic, the whole edifice falls apart. There is nothing rational about the existence of God. So I’m not convinced that common sense is a certain guide.’
Accepting for the sake of argument that belief in a Deity is irrational, surely such folk are still able to read letters and documents and make sense of most of it – otherwise there would be no point anyone posting here. We expect, rightly, that our words will be interpreted in the normal manner.
But I hold that belief in God is not irrational – God is a perfectly valid possibility in this amazingly immense and complex universe. Add to that the individual who has an immediate experience of this God – it would be irrational for them to deny it.
‘Talking of exegesis, how are we to interpret Mark 16:17-18? This is reported in Mark’s gospel as the words of Jesus himself. Amongst other things he says that deadly poison will not hurt at all those who believe. Surely we are not expected to take this literally?’
It does not say ALL who believe. The context indicates the promise was to the apostles – these were SIGNS, marks of the inauguration of the New Covenant age. They were the signs of an apostle:
’2 Corinthians 12:12Truly the signs of an apostle were accomplished among you with all perseverance, in signs and wonders and mighty deeds.’
An example:
‘Acts 28:1 Now when they had escaped, they then found out that the island was called Malta. 2 And the natives showed us unusual kindness; for they kindled a fire and made us all welcome, because of the rain that was falling and because of the cold. 3 But when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks and laid them on the fire, a viper came out because of the heat, and fastened on his hand. 4 So when the natives saw the creature hanging from his hand, they said to one another, “No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he has escaped the sea, yet justice does not allow to live.” 5 But he shook off the creature into the fire and suffered no harm. 6 However, they were expecting that he would swell up or suddenly fall down dead. But after they had looked for a long time and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds and said that he was a god.’
February 20th, 2010 at 5:29 pm
Jim
‘But I believe that ever more “casual Christians” will turn away from the Church as a result of such things as the reporting of the views of Angus MacLeay and others. I do understand why people such as MacLeay view the way the Church of England is going as duplicitous and unsound. But utimately I think that this uncompromising position will hasten the eventual demise of the Church, in the UK at least.’
But it is under the present management of ‘liberals’ that the CoE has went into demise. It is only the Evangelicals who brought any life into it. But they too have been greatly weakened by unbelief and compromise, the tag ‘Evangelical’ now is nearly as vague as ‘Christian’.
‘So what should I, and people like me, do about this? Well, if we are to be true to our Humanist ideals, we should seek to provide an alternative home for disaffected Christians.’
A Humanist evangelist! :0)
You are welcome to them. But if they are as faithful to the precepts of Humanism as they were to their former religion, then your ‘home’ will not be a happy one.
February 20th, 2010 at 5:41 pm
Jim
“[Humanism is] about the value of things human.
Its desire to learn from the past, its exhortation to courage in the present, and its espousal of hope for the future, are about real things, real people, real human need and possibility, and the fate of the fragile World we share. It is about human life; it requires no belief in an afterlife. It is about this World; it requires no belief in an afterlife. It requires no commands from divinities, no promises of reward or threats of punishment, no myths, no rituals, either to make sense of things or to serve as a prompt to the ethical life. It requires only open eyes, sympathy and the kindness it prompts, and reason.”
A.C. Grayling – “The Alternative: Humanism”
That, if you like, is my creed.’
Thank you for that summary of Secular Humanism. It is good to know exactly what folk believe, lest we caricature them.
I appreciate the human kindness espoused by you folk – but I am amazed that you see it as a logical position. If there is no outside source of morality and we are only the most complex of nature’s groupings of molecules, how can one say there is any real value in man? What significance have we over a cow or a cowslip? Or over a snowflake?
You may say we give the significance to one another – but if that is the measure, then the Nazis were justified in the significance they gave to the Jews. Who can say they were wrong and we were right? It is only one’s opinions, not a statement of what is real.
I see Humanism driven to morality because they cannot resist the evidence of conscience – that man does have real significance, not just that given by others.
Humanists are also driven by their need to avoid God’s claim on them that arises from their significance – they must offer an alternative explanation for our significance.
It’s just that their explanation doesn’t stand scrutiny.
February 20th, 2010 at 7:34 pm
Ian
We could argue until the cows came home and still be no closer to each other’s position. I had thought to end my participation at the last post, but your thoughtful and challenging posts deserve responses. Here are my responses. I don’t ask you to agree with me, and I certainly don’t seek to “convert” you (God forbid!), but I would be failing in my duty as a human being if I left you with misunderstandings:
1) I contend that the Christian Church has been in decline for longer than the recent resurgence of evangelism. I do wish you well, but I cannot see it lasting. What I see is the Church continuing to tear itself apart from within. A process that started a very long time ago and shows no sign of abating. Nothing that those of us outside can say or do will change that.
2) I’m not convinced that I could be called an “evangelist” for Humanism. I do not go out seeking to “convert” people to my view. What I seek to do is to expalain my position, and encourage the mainstream acceptance of Humanism as an alternative to religion. (We too often get a bad press thanks to certain unhelpful self appointed spokespeople!).
It is up to each individual to make up their own mind. Humanism is NOT a religion. It does not require loyalty or formal commitment. It is simply a way lead a moral and fulfilled life without superstition.
Would I like everyone to be a Humanist? Honestly, yes, but I know that it is never going to happen, and trying to force it to happen is pointless, so I must live and let live.
3) On the contrary, my position is logical. As I have said before, each of us has our own internal moral compass. We may try to externalise it as religious people are wont to do, but it is still there. Why do we have this internal compass? Simple. In order to live in the large groups in which we thrive, it is essential that each member supports the others in the group, and behaves to others as they would have others behave towards them, because doing so is advantageous to the individual.
To take an example of apparently “selfless” behavour from another species; nursing whales of some species will nurture their calves for months without eating themselves, against their “natural” desire to eat, literally almost to the point of starvation, so that they can give their calf the best possible chance of surviving, in a relatively safe “nursery” area.
Does the mother whale do this because she has compassion, or because a belief in a supernatural being? Clearly not. She is driven by instinct to sacrifice her own well being for the sake of her calf and the continuance of her genes. The sacrifice is worth it from an evolutionary perspective. Natural selection drives the inherited biological drive to do this. Those whales that do not do this lose their calves and their genes do not survive.
We are just different carbon based life forms with a higher intelligence, (arguably!) and though we are driven by more complex inbred rules, the principles are the same.
In the “safe” world which we have deleloped over thousands of years we no longer need to use all of the huge brains we have grown in order to survive, so we fill the spare capacity with other things to keep them busy, like religion.
4) Like all species, we value our own kind above all others, again for obvious biological reasons. Nature does not make this distinction. A cowslip has no less or greater significance in nature than a human. If you do away with superstition this is a logical if not comfortable fact.
5) Regarding Nazis and Jews: It is BECAUSE we all have our own internal moral compass, not a moral code imposed by a supernatural being, that this can happen. Going back to the group analogy, this is a manifestation of group A deciding that group B must be blamed for the ills that beset group A, or that Group A feel the need for land and/or resources belonging to Group B. Sadly history is littered of similar events. Many are described in great detail the Bible. It’s one of evolved humanity’s less attractive traits.
Of course, I would conyend that war might be less likely if we were all humanists – No more excuses for militant Islamacism, or Protestant vs Catholic, or all sorts of tribes vs. Jews, etc etc… Anything to break down man’s inherited tribal prejudices can only be a good thing!
6) Regarding your point: “I see Humanism driven to morality because they cannot resist the evidence of conscience – that man does have real significance, not just that given by others. ”
Each of us believes that we have significance. It’s how we survive and prosper. This is not “given” to us by others, but it is encouraged and taught and nurtured by loving parents who want their children to have fulfilled lives. This trait may be dressed up in all manner of religious clothing, but it’s still the same inner compass at work.
7) Humanists are most definitley NOT driven by our need to avoid God’s claim on us. There is no God! We are significant to ourselves, but there is no higher significance. Why should there be. Just because we’d like there to be does not make it so.
In what way then does our explanation not stand scrutiny. I’m tempted to say: People who live in glass houses…..
So there you are. You may say that this is a bleak analysis and not one you can accept, becaaue all life becomes futile if I am right. I would heartily disagree. Freed from guilt about pleasing a supernatural being in order to achieve an everlasting existence of dubious benefit, we are able to live this one life in the best way that we can. So that when our turn comes to die, we can leave our only life happy in the knowledge that we have left a better World for our descendents. That is all we need.
In the words of the poster: “There probably is no God. Now stop worrying, and enjoy your life.” Works for me.
February 20th, 2010 at 8:17 pm
I agree wholeheartedly Ian about secular humanism. Well done over these last few days for keeping the Biblical
message to the fore and keeping the evangelical flag flying.
For the encouragement of every believer, I leave this quote from JC Philpot on the verse: It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” John 6:63
It is through the word that the soul in the first instance is cleansed. It is by the word that the soul is begotten again unto eternal life. It is, too, by the word applied to the heart that the blessed Spirit from time to time keeps alive communion with the Lord Jesus Christ. Is it not so in vital experience? Some passage of Scripture drops into the soul, some promise comes warm into the heart, and as it comes it makes way for itself. It enters the heart, breaks down the feelings, melts the soul, and draws forth living faith to flow unto and centre alone in the “altogether lovely.”
Sola Gratia Sola Fide Soli Deo Gloria
February 20th, 2010 at 8:22 pm
I meant to say that I am in Dublin for the election of elders
at Arann Reformed Baptist Church. Praise God for faithful saints here in the Republic of Ireland
February 20th, 2010 at 9:40 pm
Folks,
Over the course of the past week I have read your posts attentively, and I hope I have answered respectfully. I’m left wondering if we connected at all. You males have patronised or ignored any female who dares to dissent, and in your responses to me you have frequently resorted to a shield of poetic prose, which is designed to appeal direct to the heart of the religious, but means nothing to anyone else.
A friend of mine told me today that I should stop banging my head against a brick wall as one could never have a meaningful argument with an Evangelical Christian. I will now heed her words, and this time I will resist coming back. I am sorry if I have offended anyone. I have tried to tell the truth as I see it.
February 20th, 2010 at 10:00 pm
I am leaving this mixed and sometimes heated discussion but I leave you with one thought to ponder. Years ago, I had what was described medically as a “fatal” accident after being thrown from a galloping horse. I was in a coma for over a week and, because I believed in the power of God being able to heal me, it was arranged for a healer to lay hands on me to bring me out of the coma and heal me. Inspite of suffering a seriously fractured skull and much bleeding from both ears, I eventually came out of the coma much to the astonishment of the hospital staff. The matron at the time later told me that she thought the only way I would leave the hospital would be in a wooden box. Because of my faith and my believe that God is all powerful and He will grant our wishes if we come to him, I believe that I was healed. As the injuries were severe, it did take me about a year to fully convalesce but there is no question in my mind that something very special occurred to heal me and prevent my death. At the time it was big news in the newspapers and I was depicted as someone who had almost come back from the dead. This should not be of any surprise to us, as on countless occasions in Christ’s life he healed those that were seriously or terminally ill. Faith is believing in the intangible, not something that can be explained by science, yet I have no doubt that if we ask for help in sincerity we will be helped as I have proved to myself in many ways over the years since that dramatic incident. There is no doubt to me that we have both a physical and spiritual part to our composition as human beings and much can be gained by getting in tune with our spiritual side. There is an excellent best selling book on the subject called ” In Tune with the Infinite” which expands on the subject.
February 20th, 2010 at 10:25 pm
The book that I recommended as inspirational “In Tune with the Infinite” is written by Ralph Waldo Trine.
February 20th, 2010 at 11:48 pm
I’ve been following the remaining volleys with some amusement.
I make that game to Jim. He wins on courtesy, clarity and fair-mindedness. Shame on you, fundamentalists. Cheats, IMO. Small cheer for the C of E.
My hope, Jim, is that eventually the hateful misogynist taint will disappear from the church. Scripture was used for a long time to justify slavery, after all. And how many women these days would dream of marrying a man with the beliefs we’ve seen here? Very few, however devout.
If you want to take the Saviour’s role in marriage, you’ve got to find a woman who’s prepared to play church. This, of course, might account for fundies always being so tetchy.
February 21st, 2010 at 12:11 am
Hi Jim,
Thanks for your reply. I loved all of your creed, except for the bit about ‘there is no afterlife’, I can empathise with all that AC Grayling had to say, but as an Anglo Catholic Christian coupled with my professional experience, this guy has not worked or lived with the dying.
From purely an experiential viewpoint, I have seen much death and the dying, and it is a natural progress and part of the wonderful tapestry of life, yet unfortunately it has been renegated, ignored or clinicised to a state that most (Jo Public) wish to have no part of. Even so, regardless of the many viewpoints or analysis that people have thought or felt about death and the afterlife, I personally have found it differs tremendously to thoughts or feelings in real situations of the front line ‘end of life’ care in a general ward scenario. Which is possibly where IMHO (as I do not have research to confirm) the majority of people die.
I have been with dying people where it seems as if angels themselves had come to take them home, the serenity and the peace has overwhelmed the room. And with others, the horror……… I will spare you the details.
So although at present you may not believe that there is an afterlife, just be sure of the authority that you base your conclusion on.
Be blessed
Caral
February 21st, 2010 at 1:09 am
Caral, my own experience of death, though limited, echoes yours. My beloved husband died after a long painful illness borne at home. During his last weeks he seemed almost transparent, radiant with love. Someone said “As if he stood between earth and heaven.” He was an inspiration to many and a comfort to me, both before and after his death.
I’ve talked many times with a doctor who’s been present at lots of deaths and believes in God largely because of it. He’s often witnessed what seem like reunions or welcomes. Occasionally the dying describe or speak to angels they see protecting them.
In his experience, horrific deaths are rare, and generally due to mental disease or inadequate symptom relief.
But then truly wicked people don’t tend to suffer from remorse or empathy, living or dying. Those who worry about the state of their souls are nearly always nice people who fret over every minor lapse.
February 21st, 2010 at 9:29 am
Caral and Sophie,
Thank you. I will continue to try very hard to keep an open mind.
I also have experienced death at first hand – several times.
Having an 18yr old comrade’s head blown off by a single shot out of nowhere is an incredibly severe test (I was only 19 at the time), and it cannot but help affect one’s behaviour. I think the most profound effect on me has been to persuade me to try to root out prejudice, bigotry and tribalism wherever I find it, and to promote understanding and tolerance in its place.
I hope that readers will have understood my position, but I do not think one can “win” this kind of debate. In their own ways everyone has provided us with sincere and thoughtful insight which we value, and which helps us to become wiser.
Jim
February 21st, 2010 at 3:51 pm
Jim
I won’t rely in detail to your post, as you indicate you want to end it.
I’ll just leave you with this point: humanists may well want to love their fellow-man, but if their key premise (there is no God) is true then material is ALL we are.
Rationally, there is then no significance to whether we do good to others or abuse them. Most of us fell better by doing them good, but some feel better by destroying them. Humanism cannot logically say one course is right and one wrong – they are just different. The humanist has his/her preference, but that is in no way superior to anyone else’s.
For the humanist to think love is superior for everyone means that they in reality do believe there is an objective morality. A morality that exists no matter how many or how few hold to it. A morality that does not originate in human thought. And so the spiritual world is revealed, a world beyond the material one.
February 21st, 2010 at 3:58 pm
Sophie
‘If you want to take the Saviour’s role in marriage, you’ve got to find a woman who’s prepared to play church.’
We haven’t agreed on much, Sophie, but we do on this. I’m glad you acknowledge the Christian concept of marriage is supposed to be the Saviour/church relationship: loving leadership/loving respect.
It is a pity you want to dismiss that relationship in favour of joint authority. Is it just in the marriage bond you think this desirable, or do you think the church should abandon submission to Christ in favour of joint rule?
February 21st, 2010 at 5:18 pm
Arrrrrrrgh!
How can you expect me not to respond in order to correct your post Ian, when it demonstrates such a gross misunderstanding of everything I have said. Your whole argument is based on a false premise.
I will try to make it as clear as I can in a short(ish) post, addressing each of your points in turn:
You said:
I’ll just leave you with this point: humanists may well want to love their fellow-man, but if their key premise (there is no God) is true then material is ALL we are.
My response:
Yes, we are all just “material”. Why is that a problem from a logical perspective?
The fact that there is nothing supernatural does not mean we cannot feel human emotions and behave in a “moral” way.
Furthermore, the fact that there is no God does not make our lives pointless, as I have tried to explain.
You said:
Rationally, there is then no significance to whether we do good to others or abuse them. Most of us fell better by doing them good, but some feel better by destroying them. Humanism cannot logically say one course is right and one wrong – they are just different. The humanist has his/her preference, but that is in no way superior to anyone else’s.
My response:
Wrong! Utterly, utterly wrong! You recall my explanation of the mother whale’s apparently selfless act and the Group A/Group B analysis. Why can you not understand that it is perfectly possible for humans to rationally behave in a moral way without the need for a supernatural head prefect?
And indeed as we daily witness, some humans do decide to do bad things, all the time. Indeed it could equally be argued that they behave like that precisely because there is no higher power directing their sense of morality. If we mess up our children, or those for whom we have responsibility, there are consequences!
“Humanism” does not “say” anything. It is not a religion. Humanists try to live moral and fulfilled lives. Why? Because of everything I have been saying. We know that we can feel fulfilled and satisfied with our lives if we leave the World a better place to our children. In the meantime we can try to enjoy our lives, whilst respecting our fellow humans.
And do not think that anyone who does not admit to belief in the supernatural is a conscientious Humanist, or even a Humanist at all. Many humans can believe in nothing beyond where their next meal is coming from. That is indeed tragic, and something that we can all agree is unacceptable.
You said:
For the humanist to think love is superior for everyone means that they in reality do believe there is an objective morality. A morality that exists no matter how many or how few hold to it. A morality that does not originate in human thought. And so the spiritual world is revealed, a world beyond the material one.
My response:
Correct me if I am wrong but I don’t recall ever stating that Humanists think love is superior for everyone (what does that really mean anyway?).
Assuming that one accepts the concept of an “objective morality” (and again we’d need to be clear we both had the same understanding of the term if we are to purpsue this) how on Earth do you make the huge and unsubstantiated leap to a spirit world being revealed. Now there’s a logical disconnect if ever there was one.
I don’t think I will ever change your point of view, and that’s fine, but please do not assume that you are equipped to explain what Humanists believe, and from thence dismiss their belief as illogical, whilst you remain unwilling to engage in any rational analysis and logical argument that does not include God.
The biggest divide between you and I is surely faith. Faith in a supernatural presence called God. Now, I can explain, using nothing but logic, why things are the way they are. You cannot, because of this thing called faith, which is your alternative explanation. I am not saying there is anything wrong with you holding this faith (so long as it is not used to oppress anyone), even if i do not pretend to understand it any more. But so long as you have this non-rational faith we remain on either side of a dividing wall.
I will not presume to explain away religion. I would ask you in retrurn not to try to explain away Humanism.
February 21st, 2010 at 9:48 pm
Ian Major wrote: “I’m glad you acknowledge the Christian concept of marriage is supposed to be the Saviour/church relationship: loving leadership/loving respect.”
I *don’t* agree with it. I think it’s a profoundly misguided interpretation of Christ’s truth. Were Jesus among us, people promoting such nonsense could expect a kick in the pants.
What I meant by “if you want to take the Saviour’s role in marriage, you’ve got to find a woman who’s prepared to play church” was that, as time passes, men with your views will find it increasingly difficult to find a bride. Are you sure you misunderstood?
Women expect to enter a Christian marriage as partners now, with equal dignity and value. Most men want this too. I see it all around me. We’re living through a process of transition. There are still women who accept inequality, but there are fewer of them with every decade that passes. Eventually men with your ideas will find that all the women have married someone else. Those who can’t keep up will be left behind.
Some ideas only work in one direction and human rights is one. Just as we’re not going to return to the days when owning slaves was acceptable, so we are watching the old beliefs about the submission of women slowly disappear forever. We see it happening within the Church, in the world, and in other faiths. And as change happens there is conflict between the past and the future. It’s what this debate is all about. But you are powerless to stop this process, and I believe you know this.
I find it sad that anyone can define marriage in a way that’s so limited and limiting. The submission of one partner to the other may make a good sex game, but it can never provide the blessings that come from a marriage freely entered into as loving comrades.
My own marriage gave us both such joy and although he died when our youngest child was seven, memories of our love and partnership still console me. When life is hard, I remind myself of his constant faith and confidence in my abilities and my strength.
Throughout this debate your attitude can be summed up by the sentence “I speak for all Christians because anyone who disagrees with me can’t, by definition, be a Christian.”
It’s not an argument that commands respect. And of course it isn’t true. However much you dislike it, what I’m saying reflects what most Christians in the C of E believe. Similarly I know that there are still plenty of Christians in this country, especially Catholics, who would agree with your position. You know perfectly well that there is Biblical support for both our positions.
Equality in terms of race and sex moves us closer to Christ’s vision for us. The unhealthy view of marriage you support is gradually becoming an error Christianity has outgrown, just as other evils have become history. In the past Scripture was used to justify slavery. It has been used by the wealthy to justify their privilege and deny the landless a vote. Using it to deny women their dignity as equal partners in marriage is a similar misuse of Christ’s message.
I don’t expect you’ve noticed but, however much I disagree with you, I have never said you weren’t a Christian. You are not, however, a Christian who provides a good or elevating example. Your arrogance, your intellectual dishonesty and your discourtesy to anyone who disagrees with you provide a marked contrast to Jim, a non-believer, and other posters whose faith results in uplifting insights. The mote/beam analogy deserves a bit of attention, Ian.
February 22nd, 2010 at 7:19 pm
The Lord God, our maker is worthy of implicit confidence. Nothing is too hard for Him. If God were stinted in might and had a limit to His strength we might well despair. But seeing that He is clothed with omnipotence, no prayer is too hard for Him to answer, no need too great for Him to supply, no passion too strong for Him to subdue, no temptation too powerful for Him to deliver from, no misery too deep for Him to relieve. “The Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?” (Ps. 27:1). “Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us, unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen” (Eph. 3:20-21).
AW PINK – 1886-1952
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:18 pm
I Think Sophie has sewn in the Beano or the Dandy into her Bible as she just alway resorts to insults to good people like Ray etc
I can understand the huminist etc view as that is their belief! Although one day they they will open up their eyes somewhere and say ” This cannot be true ?” But i totally love these people and pray in The name of Christ for them to be drawn to him .
As for Sophie she could be part of a greater judgement for [Claiming to be a christian]misrepresenting the truth for a lie !
No Sophie there is not two ways to look at it .To put it bluntlly .The last 40 years =feminism has murdered more babies than hitler.
Has left women sad without children [career first] drinking heavily to cope with stress .
Men confused as to the their roles.
GB= THE HIGHEST young male suicide rates , self mutilation.
Role model s for girls guess who The Spice girls ,Madonna and Jordan . Great innit .
Yet you and others seek to bring that trash into the church .May God forgive you [Seems harsh- yes because i don't want you to be judged]
Jesus the prince of peace = Matthew 21 v 12 . And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all those that bought or sold in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money changers, and the seats of those who sold doves13 AND SAID MY HOUSE SHALL BE CALLED A HOUSE OF PRAYER ; BUT YE HAVE MADE IT A DEN OF THIEVES
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:30 pm
Jim
‘Arrrrrrrgh!
How can you expect me not to respond in order to correct your post Ian, when it demonstrates such a gross misunderstanding of everything I have said. Your whole argument is based on a false premise.’
I’m sorry there is evident misunderstanding of what is being said. Please consider it may be you that is misunderstanding what I’m saying, and I will try to carefully follow your arguments.
I said:
I’ll just leave you with this point: humanists may well want to love their fellow-man, but if their key premise (there is no God) is true then material is ALL we are.
Jim’s response:
‘Yes, we are all just “material”. Why is that a problem from a logical perspective?’
It’s not. The problem comes when one tries to say bits of this material are more important than others.
‘The fact that there is nothing supernatural does not mean we cannot feel human emotions and behave in a “moral” way.’
Certainly. And I think this is where you make a jump in logic. It is perfectly logical to be kind to one another based on our desire to ‘feel’ good, to not resist our innate sense that this is the right thing to do . But it is not logical to think such behaviour is ACTUALLY any better than oppressing our fellow-man. If materialism is true, both actions are equally insignificant. There is no good or evil, just different behaviours.
‘Furthermore, the fact that there is no God does not make our lives pointless, as I have tried to explain.’
Logically, it does. We are just passing chemical reactions in a vast universe. Neither the universe nor ourselves has any point. It just IS.
I said:
Rationally, there is then no significance to whether we do good to others or abuse them. Most of us fell better by doing them good, but some feel better by destroying them. Humanism cannot logically say one course is right and one wrong – they are just different. The humanist has his/her preference, but that is in no way superior to anyone else’s.
Jim’s response:
‘Wrong! Utterly, utterly wrong! You recall my explanation of the mother whale’s apparently selfless act and the Group A/Group B analysis. Why can you not understand that it is perfectly possible for humans to rationally behave in a moral way without the need for a supernatural head prefect?’
Again, you confuse emotional responses with rational reflection: our innate sense of right and wrong puts emotional pressure on us to adopt this morality. We struggle with bad conscience if we do not.
But that does not prove our innate sense of right and wrong matches reality. The evolutionist holds that such senses are merely the result of natural selection – they have an evolutionary benefit. If ruthless hedonism had higher benefits, then we would feel quite differently. However, evolution has not only provided us with a built-in program for compassion, etc. – it also has given us the ability of rational SELF_REFLECTION. We can stand back from our emotional responses and examine them for what they are. We then recognise there is no actual good or evil, no actual significance to life over non-life. We rationally see that our moral feelings are just that – feelings. Not the recognition of an actual morality.
‘And indeed as we daily witness, some humans do decide to do bad things, all the time.’
Many do this against their better ‘feelings’, and have to deal with their consciences accordingly. Some seem to have very little better feelings to begin with – the evolutionist will say this is a genetic difference.
‘Indeed it could equally be argued that they behave like that precisely because there is no higher power directing their sense of morality. If we mess up our children, or those for whom we have responsibility, there are consequences!’
Only in this life, if materialism is true. Many can get away with great evil and die in luxury and contentment.
‘“Humanism” does not “say” anything. It is not a religion.’
Seems like one to me. It holds to a non-verifiable premise: there is no God, and it mandates a morality.
‘Humanists try to live moral and fulfilled lives.’
Indeed.
‘Why? Because of everything I have been saying. We know that we can feel fulfilled and satisfied with our lives if we leave the World a better place to our children. In the meantime we can try to enjoy our lives, whilst respecting our fellow humans.’
Again, all about feelings, not about the logic that flows from materialism.
‘And do not think that anyone who does not admit to belief in the supernatural is a conscientious Humanist, or even a Humanist at all. Many humans can believe in nothing beyond where their next meal is coming from. That is indeed tragic, and something that we can all agree is unacceptable.’
Quite so. But it is just as rational of them as the Humanist position, if materialism is true. So your view that it is ‘tragic’ cannot be other than your subjective feeling about it.
I said:
For the humanist to think love is superior for everyone means that they in reality do believe there is an objective morality. A morality that exists no matter how many or how few hold to it. A morality that does not originate in human thought. And so the spiritual world is revealed, a world beyond the material one.
Jim’s response:
‘Correct me if I am wrong but I don’t recall ever stating that Humanists think love is superior for everyone (what does that really mean anyway?).’
I don’t recall you saying it, but I took it from your morality that loving your neighbour as yourself was the only right thing for all people, not just Humanists. Are you saying it is OK for non-Humanists to oppress their fellow-man?
‘Assuming that one accepts the concept of an “objective morality” (and again we’d need to be clear we both had the same understanding of the term if we are to purpsue this) how on Earth do you make the huge and unsubstantiated leap to a spirit world being revealed. Now there’s a logical disconnect if ever there was one.’
The only reason an objective morality can exist is if there is something beyond the material world. Materialism can mandate no morality. Things just are. To get a morality that is true for all people at all times, one must look outside the material universe. Or do you have another source of objective morality?
‘I don’t think I will ever change your point of view, and that’s fine, but please do not assume that you are equipped to explain what Humanists believe, and from thence dismiss their belief as illogical, whilst you remain unwilling to engage in any rational analysis and logical argument that does not include God.’
That’s what I’m trying to figure out here. You present your view of humanism, I point out that its morality (mostly fine) must be merely emotional if it comes from purely evolutionary sources. I point out that materialism recognises no morality or even greater significance of one thing over another. I ask you to show where that is incorrect if you disagree.
‘The biggest divide between you and I is surely faith. Faith in a supernatural presence called God. Now, I can explain, using nothing but logic, why things are the way they are.’
But you ARE using faith as a key premise – that there is no God. You cannot know that. Especially when so many others tell you of their personal experience of God. They may be lying or deceived, but you cannot just dismiss their testimony and insist your premise is self-evident.
‘You cannot, because of this thing called faith, which is your alternative explanation.’
You mistake the nature of the Christian faith. It is not as commonly assumed, a leap in the dark. It is the certain sure knowledge, imparted by God, of His reality. And I can also give logical reasons why God exists.
‘I am not saying there is anything wrong with you holding this faith (so long as it is not used to oppress anyone), even if i do not pretend to understand it any more. But so long as you have this non-rational faith we remain on either side of a dividing wall.’
My faith is at least as rational as yours – you are the one living you life as if any of it really mattered, when your first premise makes all things equally of value. I know life matters, for my first premise insists upon it.
‘I will not presume to explain away religion. I would ask you in retrurn not to try to explain away Humanism.’
I hope I haven’t done that. I hope I have explained Humanism from both a materialistic and a Christian perspective.
February 22nd, 2010 at 10:15 pm
A great response Ian. I don’t have the time to do justice to all the points you raise right now, though I hope to come back to this.
We’ll be going round this one for ever if we’re not careful! Though there are some things about which I don’t think we’ll ever agree…
For now just one statement and one question for you if I may:
The statement: I cannot disprove the existence of God, any more than you can prove His existence, as I think I have said before. I discount the existence of the Christian God because my experience informs me that the evidence against so far outweighs the evidence for. If there were a truly omnipotent God it really would not matter what I believed. If I have implied at any time that I know God does not exist I apologise. That is not what I had intended to communicate
The question: Could I ask you to summarize your “logical reasons why God exists”?
Other responses to follow….
Thanks
Jim
February 22nd, 2010 at 10:20 pm
I imagine we women have finished with this now. What Sophie says is clear and well argued and admirable; some of the most recent posts are just rants we can live without, in my case here and in ‘eternity. ‘
February 22nd, 2010 at 10:22 pm
Sophie
‘Ian Major wrote: “I’m glad you acknowledge the Christian concept of marriage is supposed to be the Saviour/church relationship: loving leadership/loving respect.”
I *don’t* agree with it. I think it’s a profoundly misguided interpretation of Christ’s truth. Were Jesus among us, people promoting such nonsense could expect a kick in the pants.’
I take it you mean Paul was mistaken and in line for a kicking too? What does that do for Christianity’s source of doctrine? If the apostle was in error on this, what else may be mistaken? Do we just pick the bits we like? What if ‘love you enemies’ was merely a safe social teaching for a small minority church, but should be cast aside when we get enough power to persecute the wicked?
‘What I meant by “if you want to take the Saviour’s role in marriage, you’ve got to find a woman who’s prepared to play church” was that, as time passes, men with your views will find it increasingly difficult to find a bride. Are you sure you misunderstood?’
No, I understood fully. Your point about fewer faithful women may well be true – just as women will find fewer faithful men who will love them as Christ loved the Church. Sin brings its own consequences.
But your statement revealed a more important premise – that to achieve your idea of equality one has to get rid of Christ’s authority over the Church, and the Church’s submission to Him. You have not answered that, so I’m asking it again.
‘Women expect to enter a Christian marriage as partners now, with equal dignity and value. Most men want this too. I see it all around me.’
Quite so.
‘We’re living through a process of transition. There are still women who accept inequality, but there are fewer of them with every decade that passes. Eventually men with your ideas will find that all the women have married someone else. Those who can’t keep up will be left behind.’
If that ever comes to pass, it would be better to be left behind:
‘Proverbs 21:9 Better to dwell in a corner of a housetop,
Than in a house shared with a contentious woman.’
Some ideas only work in one direction and human rights is one. Just as we’re not going to return to the days when owning slaves was acceptable, so we are watching the old beliefs about the submission of women slowly disappear forever. We see it happening within the Church, in the world, and in other faiths. And as change happens there is conflict between the past and the future. It’s what this debate is all about. But you are powerless to stop this process, and I believe you know this.’
Human rights is most expressed when humans live in accordance with God’s law. Rebellion against His way leads to dysfunctionality and oppression.
‘I find it sad that anyone can define marriage in a way that’s so limited and limiting. The submission of one partner to the other may make a good sex game, but it can never provide the blessings that come from a marriage freely entered into as loving comrades.’
Christian marriage of the Christ/church model is one of loving comrades. As with Adam & Eve in their original state. Even in this world’s affairs, loving comradeship need not imply no leader. A band of brothers in warfare may love each other to the point of giving their lives to save the other, but some will have a leadership role and some follow.
‘My own marriage gave us both such joy and although he died when our youngest child was seven, memories of our love and partnership still console me. When life is hard, I remind myself of his constant faith and confidence in my abilities and my strength.’
I’m sorry for your loss, and glad of your happy memories. The marriage set forth in Scripture does not have the wife as a silent slave, but as the skilled helper of the husband and carer and teacher of her kids. All this within the husband’s headship/wife’s submission role. They are absolutely equal before God, but each has their role in marriage and the church. Just as elders rule and deacons serve and each member has his/her own gift. We cannot say each member has the right to rule in the church. But all are equal before God.
‘Throughout this debate your attitude can be summed up by the sentence “I speak for all Christians because anyone who disagrees with me can’t, by definition, be a Christian.”’
I have never said that, nor do I believe it. Many Christians are in error, but that does not mean they are no longer Christians. Their error needs correcting, and that’s why other Christians point them back to the Word. There are of course those who deny the basics of the faith while holding on to the name, and are indeed not true Christians.
‘It’s not an argument that commands respect. And of course it isn’t true. ‘
Quite so. Glad I didn’t make it.
‘However much you dislike it, what I’m saying reflects what most Christians in the C of E believe. Similarly I know that there are still plenty of Christians in this country, especially Catholics, who would agree with your position. You know perfectly well that there is Biblical support for both our positions.’
There is plenty of supporters for both positions, but not Biblical support. You have to make bits of the Bible erroneous if your position is true. Christians who do that have lost the right to call themselves Christian. They are making up their religion as they go.
‘Equality in terms of race and sex moves us closer to Christ’s vision for us.’
Equality has nothing to do with our roles in life. We are all equal before God, but each has their role in the family and church.
‘The unhealthy view of marriage you support is gradually becoming an error Christianity has outgrown,’
It is a teaching of the Bible. When we outgrow that, we have outgrown Christ.
‘just as other evils have become history. In the past Scripture was used to justify slavery.’
It was misused, not used. Just as some today are selecting bits of the Bible that teach our equality before God and trying to make that deny our different roles in marriage and the church. We have to obey ALL God tells us, not ignore some bits.
‘It has been used by the wealthy to justify their privilege and deny the landless a vote.’
Again, using YOUR approach to the Bible, not mine. Mine warns the rich against exploitation and threatens hell-fire.
‘Using it to deny women their dignity as equal partners in marriage is a similar misuse of Christ’s message.’
No, it’s not. I can bring ALL the Bible says about our roles in marriage to the table. You have to keep out big chunks.
‘I don’t expect you’ve noticed but, however much I disagree with you, I have never said you weren’t a Christian.’
That brings me little comfort, however. I’m in there with all sorts of deniers of the Bible.
‘You are not, however, a Christian who provides a good or elevating example. Your arrogance, your intellectual dishonesty and your discourtesy to anyone who disagrees with you provide a marked contrast to Jim, a non-believer, and other posters whose faith results in uplifting insights. The mote/beam analogy deserves a bit of attention, Ian.’
If you care to point to any examples of these allegations, I will be happy to address them. But take note that holding that the Bible is always true in ALL that it asserts is not a mark of arrogance, intellectual dishonesty, or discourtesy. You will need some others grounds for your claims.
I do appreciate you are coming to this emotive subject with a presupposition that the Bible is not the infallible word of God, and so many of its teaching will seem offensive. Maybe you should ask yourself if it is my perceived failings that bother you or is it the Bible itself – that would make our dialogue clearer. Thanks.
February 23rd, 2010 at 3:31 pm
I was going to be leaving this discussion, but I am alarmed at the heavy handed ganging up of Ian and John against Sophie in a way that goes way beyond a healthy and positive discussion, which is what this is supposed to be.
John, It is easy to blame women for the growing inadequacies of some men in society but they have to take responsibity for their own actions and behaviour. I would suggest that in some cases it is about time that they grew up and showed more consideration towards their partners as perhaps they have had their own way for too long. Yes, more is expected of men today, as they no longer have servants to run around after them as few can afford to keep servants as families did in past centuries. Even in Christ’s time many families employed servants and the wife oversaw her household – she did not do the basic work herself.
Today, due to the economic pressures of our society, few can afford to pay for help and women have to work to help to pay the mortgage to keep a roof over the heads of her family – both partners have no choice but to work in order to pay their bills. This is the hard reality of life today. Perhaps you, John, Ian and Raymond are not faced by these difficult realities of modern life. It is for basic practical reasons that both partners have to pull together in a relationship; they have little choice if the family is going to remain together and their children be given a secure and protected home in which to grow up.
Raymond, I really think that your constant throwing chunks of scripture into the discussion is not helping the situation and can be desc ribed as vexatious. Much of what is being quoted has little or nothing to do with comments prior to your post. It does sometimes seem as if you are going off at a tangent and intend to inflame the situation rather than shed helpful light on what concerns people.
I wonder what Christ would think if he was here now? Even he lost his temper at times – with the money changers in the Temple for example. I would expect he would view some of the comments as deliberately vexatious and would reprimand those concerned. Can we have a little less of the Bible thumping and a lot more humility in comments made.
As I said some posts ago, we will be judged by how we live every day and how we treat those around us, not by how often we thump the Bible . The only exception to this is the instruction to “Love your neighbour as thyself” – the greatest and most practical instruction of all, which is relevant to both Christians and non believers, as it is practical advice about daily life and getting on with our fellow human beings whoever they are and whatever they believe.
February 23rd, 2010 at 6:03 pm
Thanks, Diana, for your support. Much appreciated. I’ve given up discussing anything with Ian and John. Their reply are predictable. John rants and Ian deliberately misrepresents me, trying to pick a fight. As Jim says, it’s like hitting your head against a wall. So I’ve stopped.
Regarding the original topic, I reacted to an off-message sermon preached in the UK by a clergyman with strong anti-feminist beliefs. His vision of marriage is profoundly emotionally damaging and this is vividly demonstrated by what happens when it’s enthusiastically applied.
In America this view of marriage, known as Patriarchal Marriage, Quiverfull and various other names, is creating nightmares. Its proponents find themselves in criminal and civil courts: child abuse and neglect, domestic violence, and finally divorce.
Because, of course, once you buy into the idea that wives should subject themselves in all things to their husbands, this rapidly extends to the children – daughters in particular – again using the Bible as authority.
To keep their families away from those who might pollute them with ideas of equality BP believers tend to home school. Having isolated themselves, the families turn in on themselves, and become cults, with the central plank being that the man’s authority is unquestionable.
Domestic violence is an obvious result of this situation and it is not only the wives who suffer. Children have been beaten to death for disobedience. More commonly, it seems to lead to misery and psychiatric illness. Many fundamentalist women seem to enter these marriages full of devout enthusiasm and joy, only to find themselves desperately unhappy and often with health problems. In some cases it’s the effect on their children that finally convinces them to leave.
If you Google the terms I’ve mentioned you’ll find some truly horrifying stuff which spells out the almost inevitable harm done to very ordinary men by being cast in a godlike role for which they lack the intellect or the character.
On a more cheerful note, there are many blogs and sites about women and children who have escaped. There’s a good one at http://nolongerquivering.com/
Here’s a representative quote:
“When I shut off my brain and became willing to do whatever Mark said, he was delighted. Absolutely delighted. And everything changed. Everything. The first thing he did was give me a list on how I was to clean the bathroom. I had daily chores and weekly chores from him, down to minute details.
I remember the first day I followed his list. I was humiliated. It was as if I was a child again and he was the parent. I told him that, too (in a humbled and submissive way, of course) and he smiled and said, “Exactly. Your parents did a terrible job of raising you when it comes to cleaning, and now God has given you to me so that I can raise you and help you become the way you should be.”
I worked through the humiliation, swallowed my feelings (something I would do daily from there on out) and soon obeying Mark’s whims and will became the norm. There wasn’t really much choice. I mean, every time I didn’t obey Mark, even in the slightest thing, I was in rebellion against God and in league with Satan.
Plus, if Mark wasn’t there to patiently and gently correct my rebellion, my own head would do it, so fearful I was at being the rebellious woman that the prophetic word from God had warned me about. No. I loved God and because of that, I *would* obey my husband and do it cheerfully.”
Shudder… She (and her seven kids) are free now.
We may not have this nonsense here, but with two women a week dying in the UK at the hands of a partner or ex-partner, male domination is the last thing *anyone* should be encouraging, let alone Christians.
February 23rd, 2010 at 6:21 pm
Sorry – forgot to add this moving piece by a young woman, another refugee from fundamentalism, who writes:
“My question is, Where is the “Christ” in fundamentalist Christianity? I have come to the conclusion that Christ is nowhere in fundamentalist Christianity. Fundamentalist Christianity isn’t about Christ at all. It’s about maintaining at all costs a traditional, patriarchal society in which women are subservient and the church has the ultimate authority over the people.”
http://open.salon.com/blog/hollycomesalive/2008/12/09/unlearning_the_culture_of_fundamentalist_christianity
February 23rd, 2010 at 10:31 pm
This blog that you leave a link to is a disgrace and uses foul language. Shame on this lady to stoop to such.
“I will bear the indignation of the Lord, because I have sinned against him.” Micah 7:9
It is a view of our sins against God that enables us to bear the indignation of the Lord against us and them. As long as we are left to a spirit of pride and self-righteousness, we murmur at the Lord’s dealings when his hand lies heavy upon us. But let us only truly feel what we rightly deserve: that will silence at once all murmuring. You may murmur and rebel sometimes at your hard lot in providence; but if you feel what you deserve, it will make you water with tears of repentance the hardest cross. So in grace, if you feel the weight of your sins, and mourn and sigh because you have sinned against God, you can lift up your hands sometimes with holy wonder at God’s long-suffering mercy that he has borne with you so long; that he has not smitten you to the earth, or sent your guilty soul to hell. You will see, too, that the heaviest strokes were but fatherly chastenings; that the rod was dipped in love; and that it was for your good and his glory that it was laid on. When this sense of merited indignation comes into the soul, then meekness and submission come with it, and it can say with the prophet, “I will bear the indignation of the Lord, because I have sinned against him.” You would not escape the rod if you might. As Cowper says,
“Bastards may escape the rod,
Sunk in earthly, vain delight;
But the true-born child of God
Must not, would not if he might.”
J.C. Philpot – 1802-1869
February 24th, 2010 at 9:40 am
Raymond wrote: “This blog that you leave a link to is a disgrace and uses foul language. Shame on this lady to stoop to such.”
I didn’t notice any foul language, if there is any. What *are* you talking about? Use * instead of key letters to clean up the words, but please provide an example.
February 24th, 2010 at 8:28 pm
Jim
‘A great response Ian. I don’t have the time to do justice to all the points you raise right now, though I hope to come back to this.
We’ll be going round this one for ever if we’re not careful! Though there are some things about which I don’t think we’ll ever agree…’
I really appreciate your input, Jim. But I do realise we both may have other pressing things to attend to, so do feel free to respond as you wish.
‘For now just one statement and one question for you if I may:
The statement: I cannot disprove the existence of God, any more than you can prove His existence, as I think I have said before. I discount the existence of the Christian God because my experience informs me that the evidence against so far outweighs the evidence for. If there were a truly omnipotent God it really would not matter what I believed. If I have implied at any time that I know God does not exist I apologise. That is not what I had intended to communicate’
I do agree that proof is beyond either of our abilities. From my side, it is God alone who can open the eyes of the unbeliever. He uses Christians to bring His word to the lost, but He must empower it.
Thanks for the clarification about knowing God does not exist.
‘The question: Could I ask you to summarize your “logical reasons why God exists”?’
Sure. In addition to the internal reasons I have for believing god exists (the witness of His Spirit to my spirit), there are external things that strongly suggest the existence of God:
1. The astounding complexity of life. The idea that it could have come from non-life by a continuous process over billions of years requires matter to have an inbuilt bias toward life, or the throwing of chance’s coin an infinite number of times until sentient life emerged. The first imputes magic to matter, the latter is beyond credibility – there is not enough time nor space to account for it, other than an amazing lucjy throw.
2. The magnificence of the universe as a whole. Such immensity, beauty, complexity suggest an Intelligent Creator like the god revealed in the Bible.
3. Our awareness of personhood – we feel we are more than complex chemical reactions. For persons to exist demands a Person to create them.
4. Our awareness of good and evil. We sense the spiritual world when we face extreme examples of behaviour. It seems to be driven from a source outside mankind.
February 24th, 2010 at 8:40 pm
Sophie
“My question is, Where is the “Christ” in fundamentalist Christianity? I have come to the conclusion that Christ is nowhere in fundamentalist Christianity. Fundamentalist Christianity isn’t about Christ at all. It’s about maintaining at all costs a traditional, patriarchal society in which women are subservient and the church has the ultimate authority over the people.”
Depends what brand of fundamentalist Christianity one means. Irish Baptists? Scottish Free Presbyterians? English Brethren? Or some crazies spouting religious slogans and running harems?
‘Fundamentalist’ covers all sorts, much like ‘Evangelical’ or Christian’ does. To blanket all by the behaviour of some is totally idiotic. It’s like saying English people are snobs.
I hesitate to call myself a fundamentalist as sometimes it denotes Christians opposed to Reformed theology, and I’m a Calvinist. But if by it one means those who hold to the Bible as the infallible word of God and hold to all its basic teachings, then I’m a fundamentalist.
Anyone who abuses their wife or kids is a disgrace to the name of Christian. It calls into question their claim, as much as being a thief, rapist or murderer.
The Christ/Church model of Husband/Wife absolutely demands the husband love his wife and seek for her welfare in everything, as Christ does the Church. That can never cause abuse.
February 24th, 2010 at 8:49 pm
Sophie
‘I’ve given up discussing anything with Ian and John. Their reply are predictable. John rants and Ian deliberately misrepresents me, trying to pick a fight.’
I’m not looking for any fight, nor have i deliberately misrepresented you. You proclaim the Christ/Church model of marriage is not good, so I asked what you meant by that – was Paul mistaken about it regards the husband/wife? Or was he mistaken about Christ’s relationship to the Church? Simple questions.
‘male domination is the last thing *anyone* should be encouraging, let alone Christians.’
The Biblical model is not domination, but loving leadership. That there are those who abuse it does not invalidate the idea, any more than unfaithful spouses invalidate the idea of marriage.
February 24th, 2010 at 8:58 pm
Diana
‘Today, due to the economic pressures of our society, few can afford to pay for help and women have to work to help to pay the mortgage to keep a roof over the heads of her family – both partners have no choice but to work in order to pay their bills. This is the hard reality of life today. Perhaps you, John, Ian and Raymond are not faced by these difficult realities of modern life. It is for basic practical reasons that both partners have to pull together in a relationship; they have little choice if the family is going to remain together and their children be given a secure and protected home in which to grow up.’
If both spouses have to work out, the husband must do his share of the work his wife had not time to do. That is the only loving thing to do. how can he love his wife as Christ loved the Church if he sits watching the TV while his wife makes the meals and does all the housework?
Nothing I or the other brethren have said suggested otherwise. Listen carefully, please: ‘Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her…So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself…let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself.’ Ephesians 5:25-33.
No space there for neglect, never mind abuse.
February 24th, 2010 at 9:33 pm
Sophie,
The F word was used in relation to anger if you read down. Such was totally inappropriate on this blog !
February 24th, 2010 at 9:36 pm
Diana,
I support what Ian says, my own wife works and we share household chores. Ian is also correct re. American Fundamentalism – it is easy to bracket anyone but please do
so knowing what they believe and what they practice.
Thanks a lot
February 24th, 2010 at 9:38 pm
The Faithfulness of God
————————————————————
Unfaithfulness Is One of the most outstanding sins of these evil days. In the business world, a man’s word is, with rare exceptions, no longer his bond. In the social world, marital infidelity abounds on every hand, the sacred bonds of wedlock are broken with as little regard as discarding an old garment. In the ecclesiastical realm, thousands who have solemnly covenanted to preach the truth have no scruples about attacking and denying it. Nor can reader or writer claim complete immunity from this fearful sin. How many ways have we been unfaithful to Christ, and to the light and privileges which God has entrusted to us! How refreshing, then, and how blessed, to lift our eyes above this scene of ruin, and behold One who is faithful, faithful in all things, at all times.
“Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God” (Deut. 7:9). This quality is essential to His being, without it He would not be God. For God to be unfaithful would be to act contrary to His nature, which is impossible. “If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful; he cannot deny himself’ (2 Tim. 2:13). Faithfulness is one of the glorious perfections of His being. He is clothed with it: “O LORD God of hosts, who is a strong LORD like unto thee? or to thy faithfulness round about thee?” (Ps. 89:8). So too when God became incarnate it was said, “Righteousness shall be the girdle of His loins, and faithfulness the girdle of His reins” (Isa. 11:5).
What a word in Psalm 36:5, “Thy mercy, O LORD, is in the heavens; and Thy faithfulness unto the clouds.” Far above all finite comprehension is the unchanging faithfulness of God. Everything about God is great, vast, imcomparable. He never forgets, never fails, never falters, never forfeits His word. To every declaration of promise or prophecy the Lord has exactly adhered; every engagement of covenant or threatening He will make good, for “God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?” (Num. 23:19). Therefore does the believer exclaim, “His compassions fail not, they are new every morning: great is thy faithfulness” (Lam. 3:22-33).
Scripture abounds in illustrations of God’s faithfulness. More than 4,000 years ago He said, “While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease” (Gen. 8:22). Every year furnishes a fresh witness to God’s fulfillment of this promise. In Genesis 15 Jehovah declared unto Abraham, “thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them . . . But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again” (vv. 13-16). Centuries ran their weary course. Abraham’s descendants groaned amid the brickkilns of Egypt. Had God forgotten His promise? No, indeed. Exodus 12:41, “And it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years, even the selfsame day it came to pass, that all the hosts of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt.” Through Isaiah the Lord declared, “Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel” (Isa. 7:14). Again centuries passed, but “When the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman” (Gal. 4:4).
God is true. His Word of promise is sure. In all His relations with His people God is faithful. He may be safely relied upon. No one ever yet really trusted Him in vain. We find this precious truth expressed almost everywhere in the Scriptures, for His people need to know that faithfulness is an essential part of the divine character. This is the basis of our confidence in Him. But it is one thing to accept the faithfulness of God as a divine truth, it is quite another to act upon it. God has given us many “exceeding great and precious promises,” but are we really counting on His fulfillment of them? Do we actually expect Him to do for us all that He has said? Are we resting with implicit assurance on these words, “He is faithful that promised” (Heb. 10:23).
There are seasons in the lives of all when it is not easy, not even for Christians, to believe that God is faithful. Our faith is sorely tried, our eyes dimmed with tears, and we can no longer trace the outworking of His love. Our ears are distracted with the noises of the world, harassed by the atheistic whisperings of Satan, and we can no longer hear the sweet accents of His still small voice. Cherished plans have been thwarted, friends on whom we relied have failed us, a professed brother or sister in Christ has betrayed us. We are staggered. We sought to be faithful to God, and now a dark cloud hides Him from us.
We find it difficult, yes, impossible, for carnal reasons to harmonize His frowning providence with His gracious promises. Ah, faltering soul, seek grace to heed Isaiah 50:10, “Who is among you that feareth the LORD, that obeyeth the voice of his servant, that walketh in darkness and hath no light? let him trust in the name of the LORD, and stay upon his God.”
When you are tempted to doubt the faithfulness of God, cry out, “Get thee hence, Satan.” Though you cannot now harmonize God’s mysterious dealings with the avowals of His love, wait on Him for more light. In His own good time He will make it plain to you. “What I do thou knowest not now, but thou shalt know hereafter” (John 13:7). The sequel will demonstrate that God has neither forsaken nor deceived His child. “And therefore will the LORD wait that he may be gracious unto you, and therefore will he be exalted, that he may have mercy upon you: for the LORD is a God of judgment: blessed are all they that wait for him” (Isa. 30:18).
“Judge not the Lord by feeble sense,
But trust Him for His grace,
Behind a frowning providence
He hides a smiling face.
Ye fearful saints, fresh courage take,
The clouds ye so much dread,
Are rich with mercy, and shall break
In blessing o’er your head.”
“Thy testimonies which thou hast commanded are righteous and very faithful” (Ps. 119:138). God has not only told us the best, but also He has not withheld the worst. He has faithfully described the ruin which the fall effected; He has faithfully diagnosed the terrible state which sin produced; He has faithfully made known His inveterate hatred of evil, and that He must punish the same; He has faithfully warned us that He is “a consuming fire” (Heb. 12:29). Not only does His Word abound in illustrations of His fidelity in fulfilling His promises, but also it records numerous examples of His faithfulness in making good His threatenings. Every stage of Israel’s history exemplifies that solemn fact. So it was with individuals: Pharaoh, Korah, Achan, and a host of others are many proofs. Thus it will be with you. Unless you have fled, or flee, to Christ for refuge, the everlasting burning of the lake of fire will be your certain portion. God is faithful.
God is faithful in preserving His people. “God is faithful, by whom ye are called unto the fellowship of His Son” (1 Cor. 1:9). In the previous verse a promise was made that God would confirm unto the end His own people. The apostle’s confidence in the absolute security of believers was founded not on the strength of their resolutions or ability to persevere, but on the veracity of the One who cannot lie. Since God has promised to His Son a certain people for His inheritance, to deliver them from sin and condemnation, and to become the participants of eternal life in glory, it is certain that He will not allow any of them to perish.
God is faithful in disciplining His people. He is faithful in what He withholds, no less than in what He gives. He is faithful in sending sorrow as well as in giving joy. The faithfulness of God is a truth to be confessed by us not only when we are at ease, but also when we are smarting under the sharpest rebuke. Nor must this confession be merely of our mouths, but of our hearts also. When God smites us with the rod of chastisement, it is faithfulness which wields it. To acknowledge this means that we humble ourselves before Him, own that we fully deserve His correction; and instead of murmuring, thank Him for it. God never afflicts without a reason: “For this cause many are weak and sickly among you” (1 Cor. 11:30), illustrates this principle. When His rod falls on us let us say with Daniel, “O LORD, righteousness belongeth unto thee, but unto us confusion of faces” (Dan. 9:7).
“I know, O LORD, that thy judgments are right, and that thou in faithfulness hast afflicted me” (Ps. 119:75). Trouble and affliction are not only consistent with God’s love pledged in the everlasting covenant, but also they are parts of the administration of the same. God is not only faithful, notwithstanding afflictions, but faithful in sending them. “Then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes: my loving kindness will I not utterly take from him nor suffer my faithfulness to fail” (Ps. 89:32-33). Chastening is not only reconcilable with God’s lovingkindness, but also it is the effect and expression of it. It would quiet the minds of God’s people if they would remember that His covenant love binds Him to lay on them seasonable correction. Afflictions are necessary for us: “In their affliction they will seek me early” (Hosea 5:15).
God is faithful in glorifying His people. “Faithful is he which calleth you, who also will do” (1 Thess. 5:24). The immediate reference here is to saints being “preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” God treats us not on the ground of our merits (for we have none), but for His own great name’s sake. God is constant to Himself and to His own purpose of grace “whom he called . . . them he also glorified” (Rom. 8:30). God gives a full demonstration of the constancy of His everlasting goodness toward His elect by effectually calling them out of darkness into His marvelous light. This should fully assure them of the certain continuance of it. “The foundation of God standeth sure” (2 Tim. 2:19). Paul rested on the faithfulness of God when he said, “I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day”
(2 Tim. 1:12).
Apprehension of this blessed truth will preserve us from worry. To be full of care, to view our situation with dark forebodings, to anticipate the morrow with sad anxiety, is to reflect upon the faithfulness of God. He who has cared for His child through all the years, will not forsake him in old age. He who has heard your prayers in the past, will not refuse to supply your need in the present emergency. Rest on Job 5:19, “He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall be no evil touch thee.”
Apprehension of this truth will check our murmurings. The Lord knows what is best for each of us. One effect of resting on this truth will be to silence our petulant complainings. God is greatly honored when, under trial and chastening, we have good thoughts of Him, vindicate His wisdom and justice, and recognize His love in His rebukes.
Apprehension of this truth will breed increasing confidence in God. “Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator” (1 Pet. 4:19). The sooner we trustfully resign ourselves, and all our affairs into God’s hands, fully persuaded of His love and faithfulness, the sooner we will be satisfied with His providences and realize that “He doeth all things well.”
AW PINK – 1886-1952
——————————————————————————–
February 24th, 2010 at 9:42 pm
Thanks Ian,
Apologies. This will have to be an quick response as the outside World calls again. Got a few minutes though.
With regard to logic I wonder if we use the term in the same way. What I mean is the analysis of patterns of reasoning by which a conclusion is drawn from a set of premises, without reference to meaning or context.
It seems to me that by this standard your statements that “strongly suggest” the existence of God do not qualify.
Moreover I would suggest that each of the statements you have made supporting your belief can be explained equally convincingly without God.
Much of the basis of your argument appears to be that there are things within you and around you that are simply too complex or extraordinary not to have been created by an intelligent supernatural being which we call God.
If our grandparents had been having this discussion there would have been many things that we now understand and accept as commonplace which would then have been beyond their wildest dreams.
Today there are still many things which we do not understand, but in light of past experience isn’t it reasonable to assume that one day our descendents will understand them?
To me, suggesting that things are just too amazing to have logical explanations without the intervention of a supernatural being, ignores history, and closes the mind to future discovery. Indeed, with the LHC, we may be on the very brink of discovering a truly amazing truth in the very near future. Exciting times!
Jim
February 25th, 2010 at 12:14 am
Sophie, I was interested by your latest entry and thought you put it in a most helpful and understandable way. Although I do not want to go into details, I had some contact with a fundamentalist church once and the wives of the ministers became so fed up with being ” put down” publically by their patronising husbands in services, that they divorced their husbands! I think that that says it all. In those cases the male egos got out of hand and they suffered the consequences.
Raymond, I am sorry but you totally ignored what I said about Bible bashing. I consider myself a Christian but even I am finding your heavy handed approach beginning to give me mental indigestion. Will you stop using this blog as some kind of preaching platform – it is way over the top.
February 25th, 2010 at 8:44 am
Hear, hear Diana!
Raymond.
Quoting sermons indiscriminately is not helping your case and is not advancing the discussion. I’m sure none of us doubt your sincerity, but I would suggest that your mode of spreading the word will not work with this audience. I’m expect I’m not alone in just bypassing your sermons.
February 25th, 2010 at 8:49 am
Dont worry Jim, you’re not alone. If we wanted to hear this sort of thing we could go to St Nicholas’ church, Sevenoaks, although obviously the women couldnt question it.
February 25th, 2010 at 12:42 pm
Ian,
I have finally had time to provide a fuller answer to your earlier post. I have tried where possible not to continue with the “you said… I said…” model as the posts just get progressively longer. Please refer back to your post if further background is needed. So, here goes….
I’m not sure I understand your comment that the problem [with materialism] comes when one tries to say bits of this material are more important than others. Do you mean that there is no rational way to favour one mode of behaviour over another, because with no supernatural source of morality we have no way to discriminate the good from the bad?
I think there IS rationality in our desire to treat our fellow humans well rather than oppressing them, and I think we CAN determine good from evil WITHOUT God. Even if we were to agree that, in your words; “if materialism is true, both actions are equally insignificant”, it does not affect our ability to tell one from the other, and to favour one from the other, for practical evolutionary reasons.
You insist that, logically, if there is no God, our lives are pointless, and we are just passing chemical reactions in a vast universe. Neither the universe nor we humans has any point. The Universe just is.
I think it depends how you define pointless. Experience indicates that if I live a fruitful, productive, worthwhile life I will contribute to leaving the World in a better way for my descendents. I would agree that the Universe just is. I would also agree that on the cosmic scale my life is of no significance. I would however suggest that as thinking beings WE create meaning for ourselves, and we live by the rules that that this meaning implies. Meaning is not God given. It comes from within us, and by extension, from the society of like-minded beings in which we live.
You said that, rationally, there is no significance as to whether we do good to others or instead that we abuse them, and that most of us feel better by doing them good, but some feel better by destroying them. Furthermore, you say that Humanism cannot logically say one course is right and one wrong – they are just different.
I DO think that from a rational perspective there IS significance in whether we do good to others or abuse them. We have leant that co-operation with others benefits us. We have learnt that behaving well towards others makes them more likely to behave well towards us. We possess an evolutionary instinct at the genetic level to nurture and protect our children. We extend that same inbuilt instinct to our relationships with our wider circle of friends and associates, because we have leant that we, and probably our descendents, will benefit as a result. One could argue that anonymous altruistic behaviour falls outside this model. I would suggest that our instincts are so strong that they compel many of us to extend this behaviour to people and animals that we will never meet, but whose pain we understand and about which we feel empathy. I would accept that this does not appear to be rational behaviour, but I would submit that it satisfies our fundamental need to feel that we matter, when much of what we experience indicates that we do not.
I do not agree that I confuse emotional responses with rational reflections. Nor do I need to prove that our innate sense of right and wrong matches reality. Often it does not.
You argue that Humanism is a religion, on the grounds that Humanists hold onto a non-verifiable premise (that there is no God) and that it mandates a morality. I would dispute that this defines a religion. Religion requires a belief in the supernatural. By extension your argument would imply that of all humanity, only agnostics are non-religious, (and arguably not even them), which make the word religion pretty meaningless.
Humanists try to lead moral and fulfilled lives for logical reasons rather than just “feelings”. You say it is all about feelings; not about the logic that flows from materialism. (I’m assuming that you are using materialism in the philosophical sense.) I don’t agree. Feelings and logic are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, we can have feelings as a result of a logical decision. So, for instance, assume I decide that I must punish my child for bad behaviour. I feel bad about doing this, but experience tells me that if I do not then the child will not learn that this behaviour will not be helpful to them in later life. This feeling does not alter the logic behind the decision. Frequently one feeds off the other.
If when you use the phrase “Loving your neighbour as yourself” you use it in the same sense as “Do unto others as you would have them do to you”, then, yes we agree that this is a humanist viewpoint. And, yes, I think this model is an appropriate way for all humans to behave, because logically we all benefit.
And I am not saying it is “OK” for non-Humanists to oppress their fellow men. If within a society different people behave in fundamentally different ways, then society breaks down. That ironically is one of the practical strengths of a widespread common tribal religion. It binds people together in a common framework for living in harmony as a society. That does not make the beliefs of that religion any truer, but people go along with it as a shared statement of their view on morality and ethics.
Regarding “objective morality” – I use it in the sense of a moral view shared by most humans in a society, and one which becomes accepted as correct in the same way as a scientific theory is accepted as correct. That is to say, it is not immutable, but because it has been found to work in the past, we accept it as a given, and teach it to our children. Objective morality is a purely human attribute and within our material world. It does not come from a supernatural source.
I disagree with your premise that the morality espoused by Humanists is merely emotional, as I have tried to explain. There are logical reasons for choosing what we regard as moral. I fail to see why you believe that because it arises out an evolutionary process, morality is merely emotional.
Materialism in the philosophical sense means that matter is the only reality, and that mind and the emotions are functions of this reality, so I agree that materialism in itself does not “recognize” morality, but materialism is but a part of being a Humanist.
I have already argued why I dispute your logic for the existence of God. Equally I dispute that I have “faith” that there is no God. There is a huge difference between your stance that: “It is the certain knowledge, imparted by God, of His reality” – and my stance, which remains, “I cannot disprove God any more than I can disprove the existence of fairies, but on the basis of material evidence, the significantly most likely answer is that there is no God.”
Furthermore, if there is an omnipotent God, then nothing I can do will make any difference. Therefore I choose to live my life as if there is no God. Is that not more rational than your stance?
I do not deny that, to me, my life matters. It also matters to those who are directly affected by my existence. But in cosmic terms, no, my life does not matter any more than that of a housefly. And it does not worry me that it does not matter. Wanting it to matter, and assuming because of this that there “must” be more to life is not logical.
February 25th, 2010 at 5:43 pm
Jim
‘Much of the basis of your argument appears to be that there are things within you and around you that are simply too complex or extraordinary not to have been created by an intelligent supernatural being which we call God.
If our grandparents had been having this discussion there would have been many things that we now understand and accept as commonplace which would then have been beyond their wildest dreams.’
What things (our grandparents didn’t know about) are you referring to, Jim?
February 25th, 2010 at 7:20 pm
Jim
‘I think there IS rationality in our desire to treat our fellow humans well rather than oppressing them, and I think we CAN determine good from evil WITHOUT God. Even if we were to agree that, in your words; “if materialism is true, both actions are equally insignificant”, it does not affect our ability to tell one from the other, and to favour one from the other, for practical evolutionary reasons.’
I agree that we may choose compassion for practical evolutionary reasons. But those reasons qualify me equally to enslave and exterminate competitors when it suits. Nature is red in tooth and claw.
So we cannot logically believe our morality is other than individual to our circumstances – the strong may well have better reasons for destroying any competitors before they get too strong. Or have equally strong reasons to kill a man and take his productive wife.
Nothing in your meta-narrative makes you moral and him immoral. That distinction is only in your mind, not in reality.
‘I think it depends how you define pointless. Experience indicates that if I live a fruitful, productive, worthwhile life I will contribute to leaving the World in a better way for my descendents.’
I agree. But how is that any more significant than you living for yourself and leaving them in poverty and strife? You presuppose their welfare is good and their suffering is bad. They are equal in the sight of a universe in which ‘there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.’ ( R. Dawkins).
‘I would accept that this does not appear to be rational behaviour, but I would submit that it satisfies our fundamental need to feel that we matter, when much of what we experience indicates that we do not.’
Excellent. You have accepted the overarching reality (if materialism is true) – that there is no significance to existence – and see that our invention of morality is to deny that reality, as it is too hopeless for most humans to live with. It makes any actual belief in a morality irrational.
‘Religion requires a belief in the supernatural. By extension your argument would imply that of all humanity, only agnostics are non-religious, (and arguably not even them), which make the word religion pretty meaningless.’
I agree – it depends on how one defines religion:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion
It just seems to me that having all the trappings of theistic religion but not the theos hardly justifies one in denying it is a religion.
‘You say it is all about feelings; not about the logic that flows from materialism. ‘
I mean the logic of the main premise (material is all there is), not the logic of doing good so that I feel good or achieve a desired goal. Feelings/desire drives the logical choice on the local level – but if we step back and ask ourselves why should I do this in light of the big picture, then our reason can overide our feelings and logically justify total amorality.
‘then society breaks down.’
The rational atheistic observer says,” So?” Why should we care about society if we personally can avoid the fall-out?
‘Regarding “objective morality” – I use it in the sense of a moral view shared by most humans in a society, and one which becomes accepted as correct in the same way as a scientific theory is accepted as correct.’
But that is not objective morality – just because a majority adopt it, does not make it true. If the majority held it good to enslave all non-whites, that would not make it true, objectively good. Nor does it if they hold all men are created equal. If it is merely their opinion, it is subjective not objective. Objective mean it is good or bad no matter how many agree.
‘so I agree that materialism in itself does not “recognize” morality, but materialism is but a part of being a Humanist.’
Excellent. You are seeing that Humanism is not the logical outworking of its first principle, but a subjective attempt to give us meaning/significance.
‘I have already argued why I dispute your logic for the existence of God. Equally I dispute that I have “faith” that there is no God. There is a huge difference between your stance that: “It is the certain knowledge, imparted by God, of His reality” – and my stance, which remains, “I cannot disprove God any more than I can disprove the existence of fairies, but on the basis of material evidence, the significantly most likely answer is that there is no God.”’
Yes, now that you clarified the matter (you do not hold that there is no God, just that you find no evidence for Him), I accept yours is not a faith statement.
‘Furthermore, if there is an omnipotent God, then nothing I can do will make any difference.’
WRONG! If you turn to Him in repentance and follow Him, then you will be pardoned and become a child of God. Eternal life is a total difference to eternal death.
‘Therefore I choose to live my life as if there is no God. Is that not more rational than your stance?’
Not at all , for the reason above. Yours is only rational if there is no God. If there is, the rational thing to do is be reconciled to Him. He has provided the sure means – the atonement of Christ – and calls you personally to come:
‘Acts 20:30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”’
‘But in cosmic terms, no, my life does not matter any more than that of a housefly. And it does not worry me that it does not matter. Wanting it to matter, and assuming because of this that there “must” be more to life is not logical.’
I of course assert that your life has actual meaning, without depending on how you or anyone else values it.
But my point was to show that inventing a meaning and living by it, if there is actually no meaning, is irrational and no grounds for commending or condemning any behaviour.
February 25th, 2010 at 11:00 pm
Dear Ladies
Again you misunderstand . I repeat the last 40 years of feminism HAS NOT WORKED ! Ok ? And if you read my earlier posts [As this must be done with all of of us] You would have seen that I also mentioned the house prices are crazy for a young couple . However this does not get away from intellect free zone of feminism .
I need to tell you my dear Mother whom i love dearly once caused a stike for equal pay and for proper heating in the office she worked in ,in the 50′s . However she has now seen how paththetic feminism is now and totally rejects it as a new baptised Christian [and before] . She has seen her sons and grandsons suffer and the results of break ups also the confusing doctines of feminism . Did it once have a point ?Ithink they were right over the porn of woman [ of which now though they go in for the money and are not concerned, ie; Jordan etc] I dont see them complaining about the disgraceful behavior of young and old women on the streets of a night in some Towns and Cities ;- Tatoos . fighting like cowboys , wretching, choosing to sleep with how many men they want [Inc abroad]
While schools are being shut down because of lack of British children [as i mention previous]
The other thing you do not understand is the psyshologic on young males and females too! [xenia warrior princess , buffy the vampire slayer ] Due to the feminist brain drain and their involment in the media . Also mant teachers are speaking out against the amount of female teachers in schools -instead of a fair balance.
I now come back to he God breathed word ! In the beginning God created them male and female [ To compliment each other. not to be at war for the head -which is male in a loving Christian elationship] incidentally God has NOT reversed this order at al Not in Galatians chapter 3 Either . as this is saying that it does not matter what you are for having Faith and for Salvation ie; Male Female Slave Free Black white etc
Also if you would have read ,i do not come form an afluent area . One girl i met had her fourth daughter to 4 different Fathers [ her choice] I asked her why? She said she was after a 4 bedroom house !!! Again iurge you to order a copy of the book ‘ Save the males-why its good for a woman to care’ written by a very intellegent and caring Lady .That would be good for you – As if it comes form a male you automatically assume an ulterior motive . You will see that some feminists actually encourage divorce and abortion -Yes come on sister s Lets screw up families and murder the souls of future human beings!!!
Now if you truly are a Christian woman you should -out of the love of God [All bible written by God] submit to your husband . Time is passing life comes full circle ,its starting to change – all people are starting to see the feminism has had its day and is utterly brain dead
We should love one another [ And do not give sata na chance] and compliment each other
Love inChrist Jesus our saviour . Who rose from the dead to defeat death and to give Eternal life to all who repent and believe and are baptised Acts 2 v 38
February 25th, 2010 at 11:42 pm
Thanks Ian. In some respects we are in violent agreement. In others I do not think we will ever agree.
February 26th, 2010 at 8:20 am
John, What a tonic you are. Even at St Nicholas’ church Sevenoaks we couldnt hear your true Christian gospel preached like this (yet.)
February 27th, 2010 at 12:28 am
Had Jesus said only what his contemporaries did, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. We best decipher the New Testament by ignoring the bits which simply parrot contemporary mores and concentrate on the parts which differ. Thus Timothy’s “Shut up, woman, and do what you’re told” is exactly what any man of his time would have said, including the many who’d never heard of Jesus and advances us nothing .
Look instead at the liberating message of: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
This was totally revolutionary then, and we still haven’t caught up with it. This, the parable of the Good Samaritan and Christ’s reminder to “Love your neighbor as yourself” provides a strong warning against bigotry, racism and sexism.
Patriarchal oppression. has a long and dishonourable history both in and outside the church. Those who support the misguided idea of Christian marriage as resembling the relationship between Christ and his Church stress the love expressed within this inequality, but this is no more than cosmetic surgery to the ugly face of patriarchal oppression.
To quote from a woman who tried Ian Major’s “loving leadership”: “Did Jesus come to set people free, or put them in neat little “role” categories and shut the prison doors?” (http://nolongerquivering.com/category/the-god-factor-thoughts-on-patriarchal-teachings/)
Ian writes: “The Biblical model is not domination, but loving leadership. That there are those who abuse it does not invalidate the idea, any more than unfaithful spouses invalidate the idea of marriage.”
I would assert that model is itself abusive. It cannot be otherwise. If a woman is to consider her husband in the role of Christ then even to question the slightest of his decisions is unthinkable. Instant obedience to his every request is the only response. His behaviour will always be beyond reproach. The man’s role is as Saviour. He is enjoined to love his wife but as he is not only the recipient but also the arbitrator, corruption is intrinsic.
This isn’t a marriage, it’s a psychological nightmare at the least and potentially a lot worse. For it is among those who fervently promote this idea of marriage that we find those who justify the chastisement by Christ of his rebellious Church. Those who favour misogynist quotes they find in the Bible seldom stop at one.
The claim that a Christian wife is repaid for lifelong obedience by the willingness of her husband to give up his life for her prompts the immediate objection that this is only what most ordinary, equal husbands and wives (and other family members) are just as prepared to do for each other.
A relationship in which one adult *always* gets their own way and has total control over the other, whether as slave, prisoner or wife, is inherently corrupt. The infantilising of the submissive wife, the sense of unearned entitlement to privilege: these can only create manipulativeness and self-hatred, not to mention wrecking the couple’s erotic life. Ask any psychologist.
For what possible reason would an independent mature man seek to provide lifelong loving leadership to an independent mature women? Why would she require it?
Similarly why should an independent mature woman benefit from the loving leadership of an independent mature man throughout her life? What qualifies him? (Anatomy is not a justification for leadership.)
In equal relationships we share our strengths and weaknesses, respect each other’s skills, and take turns helping each other through tough times. Each is called on to the maximum, as adults and partners, parents and lovers. She loses her job and he is a tower of strength. His father dies and she supports him while he mourns. Roles are fluid.
Can one member of a couple ever be undoubtedly better equipped to lead in *all* circumstances on *every* occasion throughout the *whole* of a couple’s life together? Because that’s what we’re asked to believe.
No, not unless perhaps there were such severe disparity in intellect and ability between two people that a marriage between them would itself seem bizarre.
There’s certainly no evidence to believe that Christian husbands are particularly fit to lead. Or vice versa, though the fact that male prisoners outnumber female eight to one might raise some questions as to which sex is best equipped to provide a moral lead these days.
Men are statistically less stable than women, and worse behaved. The divorce rate isn’t down to disappointed husbands let down by delinquent wives. Quite the opposite. It is men who are responsible for more than 90% of the adultery cited in divorce. More than a quarter of divorces cite male violence. The Reverend MacLeay should perhaps have addressed himself to his gentlemen parishioners, advising them to up their game.
Those who came after Christ sometimes took the safe option over conduct, backing the status quo. The last thing early Christians could afford was chit chat about unconventional relationships between the sexes. This would have given rise to a reputation for sexual immorality which would have damaged the nascent movement, perhaps fatally. It is also important to remember that Paul was not Jesus and many of those who’ve studied the Bible far more deeply than I have noticed the quirks of its authors. I have heard Paul’s contribution described as “patchy” and he could be a misogynist. Paul was doing his best, but Jesus had far higher hopes for us.
Jesus, being infinitely wise, made a point of not telling us how to be married, even when he had prime time exposure at a wedding. All you need are those vital ethical principles that underpin how we should treat anyone. Dignity. Human rights. Charity. Empathy. Not “Shut up, woman, or I’ll hit you.”
February 27th, 2010 at 6:52 am
Jesus Christ: Jesus is God himself come to Earth. He first lived a perfect life, loving God with all his heart, soul, and mind, fulfilling all human obligation to God. He lived the life you owed – a perfect record. Then, instead of receiving his deserved reward (eternal life), Jesus gave his life as a sacrifice for our sins, taking the punishment and death each of us owed. When we believe in him: 1) our sins are paid for by his death, and 2) his perfect life record is transferred to our account. So God accepts and regards us as if we have done all Christ has done.
The Bible is clear therefore you must A] Repent. There first must be an admission that you have been living as your own master, worshipping the wrong things, violating God’s loving laws. “Repentance” means you ask forgiveness and turn from that stance with a willingness to live for and center on him.
B]Believe. Faith is transferring your trust from your own efforts to the efforts of Christ. You were relying on other things to make you acceptable, but now you consciously begin relying on what Jesus did for your acceptance with God. All you need is nothing. If you think, “God owes me something for all my efforts,” you are still on the outside.
“To be carnally-minded is death; but to be spiritually-minded is life and peace.”—Romans 8:6
February 27th, 2010 at 12:06 pm
To Sophie 2Peter Chap,3 verses 15-16
February 27th, 2010 at 12:24 pm
That is ;
Bear in mind that our Lords patience means Salvation, just as our dear brother Paul wrote you with the wisdom God gave him . He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which igorant and unstable people distort , as they do other scriptures, to their own distruction.
and 2 Timothy 4v 3;
For a time will come when men will not put up with sound doctine. Instead, to suit their own desires,thet will gater around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.4 They will turn their ears awat from the truthand turn asideto myths.
Thank you DM . You echo the truth of what a lot of people whom i help out have said about me . ps Would have loved to have been at the sermon ,but live over 100 miles away and heard afterwards . Bless you
I pray God blesses you all to understand the greatest instruction manual.
Sophie , dont make up things ie No one here at all is sayimg anything about beating the other up [ you must be scraping the bottom of the barrel] Be careful dear woman
Love
John
February 27th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
1 Thessalonians 2v13
Accepted as the word of God .not the word of man !
Colossians 1v25
A sevant of the commision GOD GAVE ME.
2PETER 3V2
Comanded by OUR LORD
Acts 9 v 15;
Jesus said Paul was HIS CHOSEN INSTRUMENT TO CARRY HIS NAME TO THE GENTILES
The WOrd of God is te final authority
February 27th, 2010 at 5:55 pm
Forgive me, John. I appreciate that no one taking part in this discussion has recommended wife-beating, and I didn’t mean to suggest this.
I was referring to previous remarks, but why should you have remember what I’ve written?
I’d drawn attention to the link between a belief that male authority is divinely ordained and domestic violence against both women and children.
Equality’s equality. That’s all there is to say. But a belief in male predominance lends itself to extremism. For if it’s God’s will that women submit to their husbands, how then can the same woman manage men at work? If a wife must obey, just how far is her husband entitled to go to enforce submission? Some believe women should not enter public life at all. Question follows question and, as I have written before, the history of male dominance is not one to inspire confidence. Extremists have more in common with radical Muslims than Christians.
Although I’m middle aged I’ve only come across the idea of wifely obedience in historical novels. Never in the church. But it seems it’s being revived. We see it among Christian fundamentalists in America and, in a milder form, in Sevenoaks. I find this alarming.
N.B. It’s not helpful to tell us that the word of God is the final authority when none here follows every word of the Bible literally. Not even you. You’d end up in Broadmoor if you did. There’s a link here that illustrates this rather amusingly (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8ziECzNKhM&feature=player_embedded).
I’ve checked it for bad language and couldn’t spot any.
February 27th, 2010 at 9:18 pm
Sophie
Thanks for the considered response.
‘Had Jesus said only what his contemporaries did, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. We best decipher the New Testament by ignoring the bits which simply parrot contemporary mores and concentrate on the parts which differ. Thus Timothy’s “Shut up, woman, and do what you’re told” is exactly what any man of his time would have said, including the many who’d never heard of Jesus and advances us nothing .’
You misunderstand the Christian concept of the Scriptures. They are not a mixture of truth and error, of God’s word and man’s opinion. ALL they assert is infallibly true. This is what Christ and the apostles taught about the Bible, and this is the historic position of the Church. That many calling themselves Christian no longer believe this is not a proof it is wrong, but that they are wrong. They are denying the faith.
I appreciate an unbeliever holding that the Bible is the work of man and thus not infallible, but he/she will admit that the Bible presents itself as the infallible word of God.
‘Look instead at the liberating message of: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
This was totally revolutionary then, and we still haven’t caught up with it. This, the parable of the Good Samaritan and Christ’s reminder to “Love your neighbor as yourself” provides a strong warning against bigotry, racism and sexism.’
It sure does, and the Christian heartily agrees. But marriage on the Christ/Church model is not sexist, any more than is providing folic acid to women and not to men. It is a recognition of actual difference – in the marriage case the difference created by God at Creation.
‘Patriarchal oppression. has a long and dishonourable history both in and outside the church.’
True. As has enforced celibacy. And the persecution of dissidents. but does that prove celibacy is wrong in itself, or that all dissent is to be ignored? No, celibacy is a good thing for those gifted for it. And the unrepentant heretic is to be excluded from the fellowship.
‘Those who support the misguided idea of Christian marriage as resembling the relationship between Christ and his Church stress the love expressed within this inequality, but this is no more than cosmetic surgery to the ugly face of patriarchal oppression.’
That is your allegation – but it does not stand up as a truth, for there are many happy and fulfilled marriages built on it. It is was oppressive, it would be so in all circumstances. And those who oppress their wives flatly contradict the model. We can’t blame the model for those who violate it.
‘To quote from a woman who tried Ian Major’s “loving leadership”: “Did Jesus come to set people free, or put them in neat little “role” categories and shut the prison doors?” (http://nolongerquivering.com/category/the-god-factor-thoughts-on-patriarchal-teachings/)‘
Freedom is doing God’s will. The abusive husband is not doing that, and God will punish him for it. I note the lady said: ‘If the marriage has any problem at all, it is probably yours. After all, that’s what your husband keeps telling you. The books join with his voice. In a very real sense, your husband becomes your god, a mediator between the woman and God.’ That shows she clearly misunderstood the model. If you see your husband abusing you, not being the lover as Christ is, then you have a wake-up call. It should make you doubt his assessment of who is to blame when things go wrong.
‘Ian writes: “The Biblical model is not domination, but loving leadership. That there are those who abuse it does not invalidate the idea, any more than unfaithful spouses invalidate the idea of marriage.”
I would assert that model is itself abusive. It cannot be otherwise. If a woman is to consider her husband in the role of Christ then even to question the slightest of his decisions is unthinkable. Instant obedience to his every request is the only response. His behaviour will always be beyond reproach.’
This is also a misunderstanding of the model. The model shows the two roles -loving headship and respectful companion. It does not mean the man is omniscient, omnipotent, or any of the other things Christ is. Man remains fallible. So the good wife will, respectfully, point out where she thinks her husband is mistaken or herself come up with better suggestions.
‘The man’s role is as Saviour. He is enjoined to love his wife but as he is not only the recipient but also the arbitrator, corruption is intrinsic.’
Not intrinsic, for it is a betrayal of the model. It is a danger in the marriage, certainly. Just as him meeting other women in work is a danger to his faithfulness. But we do not shut ourselves up in caves to avoid temptation. Just be vigilant.
‘This isn’t a marriage, it’s a psychological nightmare at the least and potentially a lot worse. For it is among those who fervently promote this idea of marriage that we find those who justify the chastisement by Christ of his rebellious Church. Those who favour misogynist quotes they find in the Bible seldom stop at one.’
Again, it is to miss the point of the model. The husband is not God. The husband’s discipline of an erring wife will not be inflicting sickness or death, but loving rebuke. Her response to an erring husband will be a respectful rebuke. Why? Because he is subject to error, not like Christ.
The model is for marriage roles; it does not transform the husband into Christ. He is a sinner who needs rebuke from time to time – the way that is given by his wife is part of the model – respectfully. But he is not beyond rebuke, as Christ is.
‘The claim that a Christian wife is repaid for lifelong obedience by the willingness of her husband to give up his life for her prompts the immediate objection that this is only what most ordinary, equal husbands and wives (and other family members) are just as prepared to do for each other.’
It is indeed common to human nature – to some degree. The Christian has it as a command from God however, and it is a test of his sincerity before God. The unbeliever, when pressed, has little resources for persevering, as the awful prevalence of adultery and divorce reveal.
‘A relationship in which one adult *always* gets their own way and has total control over the other, whether as slave, prisoner or wife, is inherently corrupt. The infantilising of the submissive wife, the sense of unearned entitlement to privilege: these can only create manipulativeness and self-hatred, not to mention wrecking the couple’s erotic life. Ask any psychologist.’
A loving husband will not generate those failings. Let me say it again – It is a violation of the model. Don’t blame the model for those who abuse it.
‘For what possible reason would an independent mature man seek to provide lifelong loving leadership to an independent mature women? Why would she require it?’
Because it is a marriage – not two separate people doing their own thing. Two joined as one. So a leadership role is needed for optimum functioning. And it is how God made man and woman for each other.
‘Similarly why should an independent mature woman benefit from the loving leadership of an independent mature man throughout her life? What qualifies him? (Anatomy is not a justification for leadership.)’
God qualifies him, and her, in their respective roles. When they ignore that, trouble is guaranteed. Men are prone to selfishness, women to control, in my experience.
‘In equal relationships we share our strengths and weaknesses, respect each other’s skills, and take turns helping each other through tough times. Each is called on to the maximum, as adults and partners, parents and lovers. She loses her job and he is a tower of strength. His father dies and she supports him while he mourns. Roles are fluid.’
None of that is against the model. You have an insufficient view of what is meant. Remember the wider information on marriage given in the Bible – Eve was created as a helper suitable to Adam. Not even as a separate creation, but one made out of his flesh and bone:
‘Genesis 2: 23 And Adam said:
“This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.”
24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.’
‘Can one member of a couple ever be undoubtedly better equipped to lead in *all* circumstances on *every* occasion throughout the *whole* of a couple’s life together? Because that’s what we’re asked to believe.
No, not unless perhaps there were such severe disparity in intellect and ability between two people that a marriage between them would itself seem bizarre.
There’s certainly no evidence to believe that Christian husbands are particularly fit to lead. Or vice versa, though the fact that male prisoners outnumber female eight to one might raise some questions as to which sex is best equipped to provide a moral lead these days.’
You mistake the leadership role for natural abilities in decision-making. That is not what is being modelled. Certainly it would be better for a woman to chose a husband who could be relied on to make the best choices – but the leadership role is one of respect, not of ability. Our parents might not be better than us in financial planning and many other matters, but we as teenagers would be right to respect their leadership role. We are free to show them better suggestions, but not to shout them down and insist on our better way.
‘Men are statistically less stable than women, and worse behaved. The divorce rate isn’t down to disappointed husbands let down by delinquent wives. Quite the opposite. It is men who are responsible for more than 90% of the adultery cited in divorce. More than a quarter of divorces cite male violence.’
I completely agree. Men naturally incline to selfishness. It is a key part of our sinful nature. That’s one more reason to insist on the model, the whole model, being right.
In the equality model modern society pushes, men will always be more equal than women. They can so easily just walk away. They can so easily behave as the animals, sleeping with as many as they can get away with.
‘The Reverend MacLeay should perhaps have addressed himself to his gentlemen parishioners, advising them to up their game.’
Insisting on the Biblical model is the best way of doing so.
‘Those who came after Christ sometimes took the safe option over conduct, backing the status quo. The last thing early Christians could afford was chit chat about unconventional relationships between the sexes. This would have given rise to a reputation for sexual immorality which would have damaged the nascent movement, perhaps fatally. It is also important to remember that Paul was not Jesus and many of those who’ve studied the Bible far more deeply than I have noticed the quirks of its authors. I have heard Paul’s contribution described as “patchy” and he could be a misogynist. Paul was doing his best, but Jesus had far higher hopes for us.’
You are reading into the Bible what is not there. The deniers of the Bible like to make a difference between Christ and Paul and Peter – but none exists. The honest commentator on the Bible, be he believer or not, will say so. The Bible portrays the apostolic commandments as much God’s commandments as Christ’s own words.
And the relationships the apostles commanded were not safe options for their day. For example, the acceptance of uncircumcised Gentiles as fully-fledged Christians caused massive hostility and persecution.
‘Jesus, being infinitely wise, made a point of not telling us how to be married, even when he had prime time exposure at a wedding. All you need are those vital ethical principles that underpin how we should treat anyone. Dignity. Human rights. Charity. Empathy. Not “Shut up, woman, or I’ll hit you.”’
Jesus appointed His apostles to give us the fuller message. But He did indeed tell us something about marriage Himself, for example:
‘Matthew 19: 3 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”
4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who madethem at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” ‘
February 28th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
Very well put Ian They are not a mixture of truth and error, of God’s word and man’s opinion. ALL they assert is infallibly true. This is what Christ and the apostles taught about the Bible, and this is the historic position of the Church.
‘God is a spirit: and they that worship him must worship in spirit
and in truth’ John Ch 4 v 24.
Once again I invite all on this blog to come along and here Monty Wight address the two meetings of the United Protestant Council in St John’s Wood Baptist Church, this
coming Saturday 6th March at 1pm. The topic is Evolution:
In the Church and In the Nation. It would be good to meet
up with some of you at this, God Willing. Nearest tube stn
is St John’s Wood.
February 28th, 2010 at 3:04 pm
Ian,
You said:
“The Christian has it as a command from God, and it is a test of his sincerity before God. The unbeliever, when pressed, has little resources for persevering, as the awful prevalence of adultery and divorce reveal.”
Do you have any empirical evidence to demonstrate that unbelievers are more prone to divorce and adultery than religious people? If not then this is an unsubstantiated assumption, and is insulting to non-believers. I could equally argue, with some justification, that conscientious atheists have at least as strong a moral compass as those who take their morality from a book. A book which includes instructions which are often only directly relevant to the time and in the society in which they were written.
Whilst on the subject let me declare my position on this: Most reasonable humans, religious or not, would not promote adultery. It is so incredibly destructive and unkind to those who suffer as a result. I do not need religion to work that out. It’s obvious from a practical point of view.
Divorce is a different matter. If the concept is abused, I agree divorce is indefensible. However, there are cases where it is the least worst option. I think back to the time, for example, when divorce was, from a practical point of view, impossible for most women – women who often had to remain with an abusive or philandering man for the rest of their loveless lives. Was this a better state of affairs than than that pertaining now, where women are sufficiently independent to take back control of their lives?
You said:
“God qualifies him, and her, in their respective roles. When they ignore that, trouble is guaranteed. Men are prone to selfishness, women to control, in my experience.”
I think you confuse cause and effect. If there is an established hierarchy with separate roles for men and women, which is actively encouraged by religious doctrine, then it is surely not surprising that men frequently become selfish and women seek to regain some of the control they have lost – and are often seen as controlling because of that?
We often see this extended to the workplace. It still annoys me that if a woman is assertive at work, and forcefully states her point of vew, she is criticised as bossy, or any number of less polite nicknames. If a man behaves in precisely the same way, he is applauded as a decisive and no-nonsense leader.
My point is that this widespread belief in the separateness of the roles of men and women, actively encouraged by the Church, is not only misguided and outdated. It is plain unjust, and unfairly discriminates against around half of all humankind.
I have to say it: Sophie – You are most welcome to join our growing band of Humanists. You can keep all the practical morality, and ditch the superstition and institutionalised misogyny. It’s an incredibly liberating experience.
February 28th, 2010 at 3:26 pm
Raymond,
You are aware of course that Monty White asserts that the World was created in six literal days, and that his scientific qualification is a Chemistry PhD. Arguably this hardly qualifies him to be an expert on scientific evolution. Related articles do nothing to enhance his reputation as a scientist with an understanding of relevant current information. For instance, the refutations of Darwin and Haekel are so outdated as to be risible.
You mention evolution in the context of the Church and the Nation. I can understand the relevance to the Church, but not that to the nation. Could you explain?
February 28th, 2010 at 3:53 pm
Jim, Thankyou for your comment. The two addresses promise to be interesting and I invite you to attend and on the basis of these, make your judgment. It would be good to see you as I am traveling from N Ireland for these, God Willing.
February 28th, 2010 at 3:56 pm
I’m afraid I still think male headship is intrinsically prone to abuse. Mind you, I think celibacy is a very risky enterprise, too. If set-up nearly always works well, that’s OK. If it frequently causes big problems there’s something wrong with the underlying set-up.
I return – again – to comparisons with other power relationships which were justified by Scripture at various times in history. Slavery, colonialism, racism. I’m sure there were happy peasants under the feudal system. With a caring, responsible overlord a peasant might do well. Doesn’t mean we now consider the feudal system as a model of human harmony.
Any system that relies entirely on the virtue of those who hold power and is not accountable to outsiders tends to end in abuse. Look at the horrors perpetrated by the Catholic Church in Ireland. These share features with domestic abuse,
You do not address the particular problem of marriage: its secret, domestic nature. Similar in some ways to the unenviable position of children abused by priests. When abuse can be so readily hidden, even cloaked as virtue, it is far harder for victims to receive justice or escape.
The full scale of domestic violence is still hidden through shame and fear. If society and the church assert female subordination they are compounding this.
Your comparison of marriage to an army platoon sharing comradeship but needing leadership makes no sense to me. Marriage isn’t a group activity. Marriage seldom involves snap decisions.If we were polygamists your analogy might make more sense. Read an amazing book on that recently.
To me marriage resembles two people setting out, hand in hand, on a journey of discovery. The idea that they’d agree one of them will always be the leader before they depart is totally bizarre. Who’d think it necessary to travel in those circumstances? Master and servant is the only arrangement I can think of. If one of them was paying for the whole thing it might make sense.
I have extensive experience of happy Christian marriages at very close quarters. There’s not been a divorce in my family. My parents are still alive and my siblings have all been married for at least 20 years. These families are church goers, with church weddings, baptism, etc. Of the four, in two the wives are the main breadwinner, two have the more conventional set-up.
In none of these relationships does the idea of male headship feature. I don’t think it’s even been considered. These couples are partners, just as my husband and I were. When I told my father about this discussion, he joked: “Of course I’ve always made the big decisions: what the Government’s doing wrong, what we should do about climate change. Your mother looks after the little ones: like where we live.”
I’m sorry, Ian, but you’re doing that “real Christians agree with me because if they don’t agree with me they aren’t real Christians” thing again. It makes debate a bit pointless.
You write: “You misunderstand the Christian concept of the Scriptures. They are not a mixture of truth and error, of God’s word and man’s opinion. ALL they assert is infallibly true. This is what Christ and the apostles taught about the Bible, and this is the historic position of the Church. That many calling themselves Christian no longer believe this is not a proof it is wrong, but that they are wrong. They are denying the faith.”
By your definition most of the Church of England aren’t Christians. Ian, we’re not singing from the same hymn sheet here, we’re not even in the same building.
And it doesn’t help playing a sort of trumps with quotes from the Bible. I know: we both use quotes. All I’m saying is that it’s not a tactic that gets us anywhere.
Because no one here takes the Bible literally. We just differ on which bits we prefer. For example, it tickles me that the Christian right in America get steamed up over Creationism but reserve the right to get divorced as many times as they fancy.
Me, I don’t believe souls have a sex, or a skin colour or a sexual preference, let alone that Jesus wanted male dominance or female subordination in any sphere. If a married couple is one flesh then how can one predominate over the other?
I have my view, you have yours and let’s leave it at that. Let’s just be grateful we’re not married.
February 28th, 2010 at 4:43 pm
Thank you for the invitation Raymond. Actually I would like to attend, but I will be in South Africa, so it would not be possible.
February 28th, 2010 at 5:20 pm
Sophie
In regard to your comment:
‘N.B. It’s not helpful to tell us that the word of God is the final authority when none here follows every word of the Bible literally. Not even you. You’d end up in Broadmoor if you did. There’s a link here that illustrates this rather amusingly (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8ziECzNKhM&feature=player_embedded).’
Very interesting video. I’m amazed that the bishop couldn’t think of an apt reply, as it really is school-boy theology.
The reason all the Levitical commands don’t apply to use today is that we are not Israelites living in the land and under the Law of Moses. The laws about executing blasphemers, witches, etc. were civil laws for the nation. Just as we have laws about punishing thieves, speeders, murderers, etc. If one moves to another part of the world, many of those laws will not apply.
Christ came and set up the New Covenant, fulfilling and abolishing the Old (Mosaic) Covenant. With it went all the civil and ceremonial laws. We are now under no commandment to execute blasphemers or to not eat pork.
But the moral laws remain: to love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, and your neighbour as yourself.
Simple really.
February 28th, 2010 at 6:26 pm
Ah yes, Ian, but as he and his colleagues had repeatedly used Leviticus to attack homosexuality, the Archbishop was in no position to give that snappy answer.
Those who live by the sword, etc.
February 28th, 2010 at 6:33 pm
@Jim, I’ve just noticed your post about adultery. I had a feeling I’d seem some research supporting the theory that Christians were less likely to be unfaithful to their spouses or get divorced.
Having looked into it, it seems I’m wrong. Or least it’s more complicated than that. It’s not at all what I expected.
Divorce rates in the US among conservative Christians are significantly higher than for other all faith groups, and much higher than for atheists and agnostics.
Here are the figures for the US (UK stuff below):
Non-denominational Christians (small groups; independents) 34%
Jews 30%
Born Again Christians 27%
Mormons 24%
Other Christians (average) 24%
Catholics 21%
Atheists and agnostics 21%
Of course there’s a big difference between “those with no religion” and atheists or agnostics. A lot of thought, for a start. Someone like you who clearly pays so much attention to ethics can’t be compared to those think it’s a county near London. The UK statistics below give a divorce rate of 43% for “those with no religion”, as compared to 21% for “atheists and agnostics” shown above.
George Barna, president and founder of Barna Research Group, commented:
“While it may be alarming to discover that born again Christians are more likely than others to experience a divorce, that pattern has been in place for quite some time. Even more disturbing, perhaps, is that when those individuals experience a divorce many of them feel their community of faith provides rejection rather than support and healing. But the research also raises questions regarding the effectiveness of how churches minister to families. The ultimate responsibility for a marriage belongs to the husband and wife, but the high incidence of divorce within the Christian community challenges the idea that churches provide truly practical and life-changing support for marriages.”
http://www.gallup.com/poll/6592/future-marriage-part-iii.aspx
While middle of the road Christians in the UK have a lower divorce rate (and a better quality of life) than those with no religion, the other religions have far lower divorce rates than Christianity.
“Hindus and Sikhs are the least likely to be divorced, separated or re-married. This pattern was the same across most age groups in Great Britain in 2001. For example, among 45 to 54 year olds, one in ten Sikhs (10 per cent) and Hindus (11 per cent) who had ever been married described their current marital status as divorced, separated or re-married. This compares with 17 per cent of Muslims, 34 per cent of Christians and 43 per cent of those with no religion in the same age group.”
I think there’s a big difference between UK Christians and US Christians. I’ll do a bit more ferreting,
My fidelity to my husband was entirely based on love for him and our mutual trust. I wouldn’t have wanted anything to damage that. It wasn’t anything to do with religion but maybe this was because it was easy. Seems to me being virtuous comes naturally a lot of time: if you’re passionately attached to your husband marital fidelity requires no effort at all. And it was lovely, when we faced his death together, to know that we’d kept our promises.
February 28th, 2010 at 7:11 pm
Ian,
Sorry, I just saw I missed one of your posts in which you ask the question of what things I refer to – with regard to my statement that if our grandparents had been having this discussion there would have been many things that we now understand and accept as commonplace which would then have been beyond their wildest dreams.’
Where to start? In terms of our understanding of the physical World: the knowledge we’ve gained from advances in quantum mechanics, and our understanding of the nature of the Universe; advances in our understanding of molecular biology, and the origins of life; the development of computer technology that enables us to “see” things previously invisible to us; advances in communications technology – which have enabled us to advance from carrier pigeons to mobile phones.
In fact, when my Grandfather was born there were no cars; and humans being able to fly across Oceans was science fiction. There were learned professors who “proved” that it was impossible to travel faster than the speed of sound, in conflict with others who thought that it was possible but that the human body was not able to withstand the effects. I could fill pages more with examples, but hope this short list answers the point of your question.
February 28th, 2010 at 7:53 pm
Jim
Thanks for the reply on our grandparents understanding.
You imply that at some future date we will understand how such almost infinite complexity we observe can be accounted for by time and chance.
What I’m saying is that the great insights we have over our grandparents have not shown us anything in that direction. On the contrary, the ‘simple cell’ which evolutionists in Darwin’s time could envisage being evolved by time and chance has been shown to be magnitudes of order more complex. The problem for evolution is to explain how things move from a relatively simple form – a non-organic molecule – to even the simplest life-form today. It means billions of years of increasing order, specified complexity – something Entropy tells us cannot happen. The complex over time becomes less so. And the only source of energy available to counter it is radiation from the sun. And we all know what radiation + time equals.
February 28th, 2010 at 9:04 pm
Ian,
I think in an earlier post (or maybe on another thread) I fully acknowledged that, at the time that our Sun finally runs out of fuel and the human race ceases to exist, we would probably still not know all the answers we seek .
But that does not in itself leave a hole in our understanding for which the only answer is “God”.
We know that there are things that we don’t understand today.
My point is that we also know there are things that we once thought we would never comprehend, that today we do. There is every reason to assume that humans will continue this process of discovery until our eventual disappearance.
I would also submit that you have undersold the theory of evolution, and oversold other theories which lend weight to you argument. To forensically pick your argument apart would require me to wrap a wet towel around my head to stop it overheating, so I will not attempt the feat here.
Instead I will confine myself to quoting paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, who wrote:
“Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.”
February 28th, 2010 at 9:15 pm
Oh, and it’s not Evolution’s problem to explain how life began
- That’s Abiogenesis’ domain.
See the entry at Wikipedia for a detailed explanation of the theories.
There are still gaps in our understanding but we continue to make progress.
February 28th, 2010 at 10:29 pm
I meant to add that I think it is quite possible that by the time our grandchildren are our age, we humans will have advanced our understanding of all that abiogenesis describes, to the point where we will be able to “create life” from inanimate materials in the laboratory. Whether we choose to do is is of course a different question!
March 1st, 2010 at 1:55 am
Your debate is really cool and very intellectual and way above my head but very basically I thought Jesus would be classed as a bit of a cool dude if he was born now – he hung around with misfits in society – like prostitutes and lepers, the disabled, people of different ethnic minorities etc. He treated them as equals right? he didn’t shun them because they had lepracy (sp?) or were black or something right?
So to me, he treated probably what could be say societies misfits (back then) as like equals – he didn’t look down on them – so why is the dude who wrote the article look down on women?
In my probably very basic way, what i am trying to say is that if Christians of today want to be like/aspire to be like Jesus who treated “misfits” in society as equals, then why cannot the people who like follow jesus do the same.
I hope that makes sense!
March 1st, 2010 at 8:40 am
Preachers of the Gospel are not free to pick and choose what they preach in the sense they are committed to preach ALL Scripture. Some parts are not relevant today, for example the ceremonial sacrifices of OT but such must be shown as finger-post to the one supreme Calvary Sacrifice of Christ. Mr MacLeay has been faithful to his calling in the matter under discussion and he should be praised rather than criticised. It would be good if more so-called clergymen would follow his example without fear or favour.
March 1st, 2010 at 9:52 am
@Philip Slater – the controversy isn’t about Angus MacLeay preaching “without fear or favour” Far from being “not free to pick and choose” (which suggests impartiality) his choice of subject was part of his wider agenda. He is a vociferous member of Reform, a political pressure group that opposes (among other things) the ordination of women. This sermon is only one manifestation of his preoccupations.
As his church is a “feeder” church for the best local schools, the church is packed with young families. A captive audience, to some extent.
I wouldn’t put up with Rev MacLeay for access to a good school but I’m afraid many parents will. Whether those who attend for this reason pay any attention to his sermons is another matter. However it’s been reported that his attitude to women has made long-standing church stalwarts feel obliged to worship elsewhere, which seems sad.
I wonder how many would attend if school places were no longer in this church’s gift?
March 1st, 2010 at 10:07 am
My concern is not school places. Experience has taught me that many people will use any pretense to oppose the expository preaching of the Gospel. If Mr MacLeay opposes the ordination of women it is proper to ask where he gets his idea from. By reading Scripture in its wide context it will be clear that his basis for doing so is not an anti-female disposition but a faithful assertion of the Spirit-breathed Divinely inspired Word of God. I know many may not like it but comparatively few are willing to submit themselves to the Authority of the Word. The general attitude is, ‘Mum knows best!’
March 1st, 2010 at 11:14 am
For MacLeay and St Nicholas chruch to give up its control over entry to and the running of Lady Boswell’s primary school and its gatekeeper role to entry to Bennett Memorial secodnary school would be the acid test. Will they? Of course not, because Jesus Christ said ‘Go into the world and manipulate all secular levers of power for the benefit of an institutional church and the oppressionof women’.
March 1st, 2010 at 1:13 pm
Your concern may not be with school places, Philip Slater, but they are very much to the fore in Sevenoaks. Angus MacLeay has an audience largely because of his earthly powers. Dr Draper sets out the situation wittily.
There’s a big difference between what someone uses to supports their position and where they get the original idea from. As I’ve said before in this debate, a huge range of beliefs, both reputable and unsavoury, have found justification in Scripture.
March 1st, 2010 at 7:27 pm
When I meditated on the word Guidance, I kept seeing “dance” at the end of the word. I
remember reading that doing God’s will is a lot like dancing. When two people try to
lead, nothing feels right. The movement doesn’t flow with the music, and everything is
quite uncomfortable and jerky. When one person realizes that, and lets the other lead,
both bodies begin to flow with the music. One gives gentle cues, perhaps with a nudge to
the back or by pressing lightly in one direction or another. It’s as if two become one
76
body, moving beautifully. The dance takes surrender, willingness, and attentiveness from
one person and gentle guidance and skill from the other.
This is so beautiful and so meaningful to what a relationship with God should really be
like. When you get it right, there is absolutely nothing like it!
The dance can be just as beautiful in the home.
We know this is how to have a perfect relationship with God, and God tells us how to. [the man to love his wife and women to respect the husband as the Lord]
March 1st, 2010 at 7:29 pm
Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the
husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the
saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be
to their own husbands in every thing. 25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also
loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with
the washing of water by the word, 27 That he might present it to himself a glorious
church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and
without blemish. 28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth
his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and
cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 30 For we are members of his body, of his
flesh, and of his bones. 31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and
shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32 This is a great mystery:
but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let every one of you in
particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her
husband.
The man
March 1st, 2010 at 7:30 pm
I love you all”!!!
March 1st, 2010 at 7:33 pm
Col 3:18 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord. 19
Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them.
The Lord loves when a wife is submissive to her husband. Husbands should love their
wife and should not be harsh with them.
1 Tim 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all
gravity; 5(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the
church of God?) 6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the
condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are
without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. 8 Likewise must the deacons
be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; 9
Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. 10 And let these also first be
proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. 11 Even so must
their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
A man should rule his house well and good in the sight of God. The passage above is
speaking about a man desiring to become a bishop of the church, but can be applied to
anyone who wishes to be a witness, teacher, pastor, or to be in any service of Christ. If
you don’t rule your own house well, how can you handle a ministry?
Heb 13:5 Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things
March 1st, 2010 at 10:59 pm
‘a nudge to the back’! I dont think you go dancing John.
March 2nd, 2010 at 9:24 am
@John – appreciate the loving kindness behind your words, but we’ll have to agree to differ.
Your dancing analogy reminds me of the old joke: “Why does Fred Astaire get all the praise? Ginger Rogers does exactly the same, only backwards in high heels!”
March 2nd, 2010 at 9:29 am
Philip Slater writes “Experience has taught me that many people will use any pretense to oppose the expository preaching of the Gospel.”
Another way to put this might be “Experience has taught me that sermons hostile to mainstream Church of England belief can be relied on offend or exasperate many parishioners.”
March 2nd, 2010 at 10:08 am
Sophie needs to understand that preaching is to be according to the WORD OF GOD and NOT in line with denominational belief. Denominational belief must be in line with Scripture. The Roman Church lays great emphasis on the Magisterium of the Church as an Authority – Biblical Christians look to no Church or Authority other than Scripture. Therefore, Mr MacLeay is guilty on one count alone (irrespective of the educational politics of Sevonoaks) and that is he has declared the Word of God as set out in Scripture. He is obviously a faithful Minister of the Gospel.
March 2nd, 2010 at 10:59 am
Am I right in think that when you refer to the Roman Church you mean the Catholic church? As the church in Sevenoaks is C of E I’m not clear why Catholicism comes into it, though I wouldn’t be surprised if the parishioners hope Angus MacLeay abandons them for Rome.
Philip, I’m sure you don’t mean any harm but typing in capitals online conveys SHOUTING which gives an aggressive or unbalanced tone. Emphasis *can* be achieved in other ways.
March 2nd, 2010 at 12:29 pm
Sophie, I apologise if your sensitivities have been disturbed by my use of Capital letters. I was not shouting but emphasising the pre-eminence of the Word of God.
I did mean the Roman Catholic Institution. Catholicism comes into the discussion not because of its stance regarding women but because Bible believing Christians disregard any ‘Authority’ other than that of Scripture and Rome has throughout history pontificated its own teaching alongside Scripture.
As for Angus MacLeay (and his like) defecting to Rome, there is as much chance of that as there was of those Reformers’ who were martyred for their faith doing so who believed that salvation was by faith ALONE (not shouting, just emphasising) through Christ ALONE, on the basis of Scripture ALONE . In the CofE there are some Ministers who ‘swear allegiance’ to the 39 Article of Religion and seek to abide by them. Others ‘swear’ and believe, act and preach contrary to them.
March 2nd, 2010 at 2:17 pm
It’s not my sensitivities that are at issue. I was trying to warn you of an unwitting breach of etiquette. If that doesn’t bother you that’s fine. But if you use capitals to emphasise the WORD OF GOD, particularly on a religious blog where the subject comes up all the time, people are LIKELY TO THINK you’re unbalanced. Check out the other people who use lots of capitals and you’ll see what I mean.
Like many Christians I strongly disapprove of the Catholic church . Tickles me that you write as though you’re unaware that there are major legitimate differences of theological opinion. To suggest there’s only one way to interpret the Bible is entirely disingenuous.
Love this new phrase “Bible believing Christians” – comes up all over. As opposed to what? Does this mean you’re a Creationist?
Millions of Christians support the ordination of women. Get over it. If we’re wrong no doubt we’ll hear about it later. For those who don’t like it there are still plenty of denominations in which there aren’t any female clergy. Many mansions – there are indeed.
Forgive me, but if you look back you’ll realise you joined this debate very late and I’ve been through this entire argument once already. I don’t expect we’ll ever agree but then, we don’t have to. Genuine difference doesn’t mean we have to fight. Let’s just be different. You in your small corner and I in mine.
March 2nd, 2010 at 2:58 pm
Sophie, I joined the debate on 16th February. My thereafter silence until recently was by choice as will be future silence. The whole debate is going round in circles.
I am a Creationist and believe it because of God-given Faith (Hebrews 11:3, 2 Peter 3:5) Wonderful to know that the Creator is also the Saviour – John 1: 1-3.
Millions may well support the ordination of women, but does Scripture justify such belief? The term ‘Bible believing Christians’ is not new – maybe some circles employ it whilst others don’t!
We obviously disagree and happily we can do so without being disagreeable.
March 2nd, 2010 at 9:32 pm
Jim
‘Do you have any empirical evidence to demonstrate that unbelievers are more prone to divorce and adultery than religious people?’
I did not claim religious people had a marked difference than unbelievers. I claimed true Christians do. Note I say true Christians, those who actually believe in the God of the Bible and seek to obey His words. They have the motivation not to run after a newer model or to get dissatisfied with their lot. They do not have the excuse, ‘we just fell out of love and I have found love somewhere else’. They have the commandment of God to love their wife, without excuse.
Sophie rightly points to Barna’s research in the USA, which shows that many who profess to be ‘born again’ Christians actually behave little differently than unbelievers. I suggest that most of this is because they ARE unbelievers. The culture of easy-believism has swamped much of Evangelical Christianity in the USA. Psychological techniques have gained professions of faith, but no actual change of heart. Jesus is a fire-insurance against hell, and a lottery ticket for health & wealth. This is not the historic Evangelical faith. So no wonder many of its adherents feel free to betray their spouses and/or jump ship when the going gets tough.
Sadly, I admit that some true believers are among them. We are not immune to sin, as the record of the churches in the New Testament reveals. But the difference is this: sin is confronted, the sinning Christian called to repentance – and if they fail to do so, they are cast out. So true Christians do not lightly commit adultery and/or divorce.
From my own observation – I have been a Christian for about 43 years – I personally know of no Christian couple who just decided to call it a day. I know of two Christians who divorced against the will of their Christian spouse, claiming adultery against them, but that being denied.
I know of several other Christian couples who divorced on the occasion of undisputed adultery. Mostly those guilty spouses have given no indication that their profession was real in the first place.
I know of some Christian couples who have survived the adultery of one of them. Repentance was met by forgiveness and reconciliation.
‘If not then this is an unsubstantiated assumption, and is insulting to non-believers. I could equally argue, with some justification, that conscientious atheists have at least as strong a moral compass as those who take their morality from a book.’
Of course they could have strong moral beliefs on faithfulness in marriage. Quite what they would base that on, I don’t know. But is that the case in real life? Have not the leading atheists been rather up for ‘freedom within our relationship’? Do we see adultery or divorce because of boredom being condemned as immoral? I’m asking that in genuine ignorance, for I am not familiar with the moral codes of Humanism.
‘A book which includes instructions which are often only directly relevant to the time and in the society in which they were written.’
Some of the laws were indeed just for the time/situation, as the Old Covenant was temporary. The New Covenant which replaced it gives laws that do not change.
‘Whilst on the subject let me declare my position on this: Most reasonable humans, religious or not, would not promote adultery. It is so incredibly destructive and unkind to those who suffer as a result. I do not need religion to work that out. It’s obvious from a practical point of view.’
I agree that most ordinary folk know instinctively that adultery is bad. But many today seem to have the caveat that it is less bad that a ‘loveless’ marriage. So having lost interest in your wife, you feel justified in ‘finding love’ in someone new. ‘All very sad, of course, but one has to make the best of life and all that.’
‘Divorce is a different matter. If the concept is abused, I agree divorce is indefensible. However, there are cases where it is the least worst option. I think back to the time, for example, when divorce was, from a practical point of view, impossible for most women – women who often had to remain with an abusive or philandering man for the rest of their loveless lives. Was this a better state of affairs than than that pertaining now, where women are sufficiently independent to take back control of their lives?’
I have no problem with divorce on just grounds. The Evangelical church has generally taken that position. But the common idea of ‘no blame’ divorce, of just walking away from a boring marriage – that is a grave sin.
‘I think you confuse cause and effect. If there is an established hierarchy with separate roles for men and women, which is actively encouraged by religious doctrine, then it is surely not surprising that men frequently become selfish and women seek to regain some of the control they have lost – and are often seen as controlling because of that?’
Take any godless society and see what role women have. It is almost always they who get the dog-end. If the oppression is not codified in law, as it is in some false religions, then it is still the reality – the woman is impregnated, the man leaves and continues his affairs while the woman raises the kids on her own. Repeat several times, and get a snapshot of modern society.
Men are naturally prone to selfishness; women to seek control in the relationship. Where the man is not the selfish brute, the woman becomes the hen-pecker. How different from the Christian model of loving leader and respectful companion.
‘We often see this extended to the workplace. It still annoys me that if a woman is assertive at work, and forcefully states her point of vew, she is criticised as bossy, or any number of less polite nicknames. If a man behaves in precisely the same way, he is applauded as a decisive and no-nonsense leader.’
I agree, that is deplorable. It is due to the failure to separate the relevant jurisdictions. Work is not the family or the church. A woman is not under a man as her head, nor is she reflecting the headship of Christ.
‘My point is that this widespread belief in the separateness of the roles of men and women, actively encouraged by the Church, is not only misguided and outdated. It is plain unjust, and unfairly discriminates against around half of all humankind.’
As I point out above, the separate role of woman is only in the family and church. No where does God say the woman is to have a subservient role in the outside world.
‘I have to say it: Sophie – You are most welcome to join our growing band of Humanists. You can keep all the practical morality, and ditch the superstition and institutionalised misogyny. It’s an incredibly liberating experience.’
Yes, if Sophie feels that one can pick and choose which commandments of God one keeps, and which can be discarded as merely man’s opinion, then there is no reason to cling to Christian forms. Humanism has the principle of identifying one’s own morality.
March 2nd, 2010 at 9:42 pm
Hi, Bex
‘In my probably very basic way, what i am trying to say is that if Christians of today want to be like/aspire to be like Jesus who treated “misfits” in society as equals, then why cannot the people who like follow jesus do the same.’
Jesus treated them as equals, not to Himself (for he is God) but to every man. For ALL have sinned. So Jesus called them to repentance, to leave their life of sin and follow Him. He did not say they were OK as they were:
‘Matthew 9:10 Now it happened, as Jesus sat at the table in the house, that behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat down with Him and His disciples. 11 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to His disciples, “Why does your Teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”
12 When Jesus heard that, He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. 13 But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice.’ For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”’
That is what real Christians today seek to do – to point sinners to Christ who alone can save them from their sin and its eternal consequences. We give the same call he did – to repent and believe in Him.
March 2nd, 2010 at 9:56 pm
Jim
Just a quickie for tonight, before I head out to work.
‘Instead I will confine myself to quoting paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, who wrote:
“Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.”’
Stephen confused himself in the quote. He rightly says facts and theories are different things. And that theories seek to interpret the facts. But he then makes the jump to say evolution is a fact, when it is only a theory to explain the facts. We see fossils; we see geologic stratification; we see modification of life (finch’s beaks changing over time) – and the evolutionist says evolution accounts for all this. The creationist sees the same facts, and says Biblical creation accounts for all this. Both are theories that may turn out to be factual, but they cannot scientifically be called facts.
March 2nd, 2010 at 11:38 pm
DearSophie
It seems you,like others ,have what we call feminist glasses – Where any excuse will be made up whether reading Gods Holy word or not . You cannot see the truth for your stained glasses .
Its the same with evolution glasses eg; Some friends of mine said that my problem was that i did’nt read what Darwin said ? So i read what darwin said , and did you you know that he i said [page49 vol2, 6th edition the origin of species] ,Icannot prove my theory [ idea] when i look around and see well [proper ] formed creatures . Why is nature not in confusion? [ THIS IS THE SAME TODAY] he then said the answer lies in the imperfect fossil record ! He asked why do we not find the intermediate skeletons imbedded in the crust of the earth ?
Well now nearly 200 years since not one intermediate skelelon has been found ! [NB ; With all the modern drilling methods and all the excavations to the earths core = not one . However IF EVOLUTION WAS TRUE THERE WOULD BE THOUSANDS IF NOT MILLIONS of intermediate skeletons found by now ! Faith is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links unseen !
Now then lets look at what prof n. Heribert Nilson of Lund University, Sweden says [ he has studied evolution for over 40 years and has commented on the problem of missing links] ” It is not even possible to make even a caricature of evolution out of paleobiological facts. The fossil record materail is now so incomplete, that the lack of transitional seriescannot be explained by the scarcity of materail . The deficiences are real, they will never be filled.
If you are a believer ? then the word says in the BEGINNING God CREATED ! NOT ! IN THE BEGINNING I DID’NT KNOW WHAT I WAS DOING You know the God i believe in is so intellegent and powerful that he could create all this in 7 seconds if he wished
This is however another subject ; Back to feminism . Men and women always will be different [ as women always declare !] and are suited in certain roles . In fact all the heroines of women i can admire are those that care , besides my late Nan , My Mother , Forence nightingale, Mother teresa , And many fine ladies that helped to open up wash houses for the poor.
ps; Istate again that Galatians Ch3 Does not mean that there is no such thing as male or female , but read in context it is about salvation through faith [ Coming from Abraham etc] we are out of the Jewish ritual law and into Faith inChrist for eternal life – no matter who you are slave or free male or female, Jew or Gentile
Ps ; I am a good dancer
March 2nd, 2010 at 11:47 pm
Do any of the capital-letter-addicts (on which please read Sophie’s point) think there is any possibility that men of the institutional church- as it existed when the earliest gospels were written down- added those bits about repentance and sinning no more to a genuine oral tradition of Jesus’ radical words and nature to which Bex points? Of course they don’t, because it doesn’t suit their obsession with controlling the lives of others, especially women. Don’t buy it, Bex.
March 3rd, 2010 at 12:31 am
Dear Precious Ladies
We are sorry if capital letters offend your female sensitivity .You are however welcome to use capital letters if you think you are making a point? We will not be OFFENDED
Try to read what is said, instead of going on about capital letters ?
Sounds like you too GM have a pick and mix bible ?
Jesus said . ” Stop sinning or something worse could happen to you” and
And REPENT for the end is near Mathew 4 v 17
Hey St Luke was a doctor and he mentions women a lot [ my mothers favourite]
God night and God bless
March 3rd, 2010 at 12:41 am
Sophie
Read the dance again;
One person and gentle guidance and skill from the OTHER
PS;Sorry for capital letters
March 3rd, 2010 at 8:39 am
Where I dance, the teacher is a woman and does not teach that some god said it should be a man in charge and doing the teaching. She teaches the women and the men. Men dance with men, women with women as well as women with men. Women teach the “men’s” part of the dance, and men the “woman’s ” part. It works, everybody cooperates, has a good time, and we all learn. What a model for a church.
March 3rd, 2010 at 10:03 pm
God is the Lord, which hath shewed us light.” Psalm 118:27
The Psalmist was clearly possessed of light, for he says, “God is the Lord, which hath shewed us light.” He was evidently, then, possessed of light; and this light was in him as “the light of life.” This light had shone into his heart; the rays and beams of divine truth had penetrated into his conscience. He carried about with him a light which had come from God; in this light he saw light, and in this light he discerned everything which the light manifested. Thus by this internal light he knew what was good and what was evil, what was sweet and what was bitter, what was true and what was false, what was spiritual and what was natural. He did not say, This light came from creature exertion, this light was the produce of my own wisdom, this light was nature transmuted by some action of my own will, and thus gradually rose into existence from long and assiduous cultivation. But he ascribes the whole of that light which he possessed unto God the Lord, as the sole Author and the only Giver of it. Now, if God the Lord has ever shewed you and me the same light which he shewed his servant of old, we carry about with us more or less a solemn conviction that we have received this light from him. There will, indeed, be many clouds of darkness to cover it; there will often be doubts and fears, hovering like mists and fogs over our souls, whether the light which we have received be from God or not. But in solemn moments when the Lord is pleased a little to revive his work, at times and seasons when he condescends to draw forth the affections of our hearts unto himself, to bring us into his presence, to hide us in some measure in the hollow of his hand, and give us access unto himself; at such moments and seasons we carry about with us, in spite of all our unbelief, in spite of all the suggestions of the enemy, in spite of all doubts, fears, and suspicions that rise from the depths of the carnal mind, in spite of all these counter-workings and underminings, we carry about with us at these times a solemn conviction that we have light, and that this light we have received from God. And why so? Because we can look back to a time when we walked in no such light, when we felt no such light, when everything spiritual and heavenly was dark to us, and we were dark to them.
March 4th, 2010 at 7:19 pm
Sophie
‘My fidelity to my husband was entirely based on love for him and our mutual trust. I wouldn’t have wanted anything to damage that. It wasn’t anything to do with religion but maybe this was because it was easy. Seems to me being virtuous comes naturally a lot of time: if you’re passionately attached to your husband marital fidelity requires no effort at all. And it was lovely, when we faced his death together, to know that we’d kept our promises.’
You are right – virtuous behaviour comes naturally to us all, a lot of the time. Kindness, love, respect, etc. are found in us in various degrees; some of us naturally have in in greater amounts. Not only the God- fearing know instinctively what is right and wrong.
That’s because God made us all and our conscience witnesses to that fact, and His grace keeps us from being as wicked as we might be.
Your love and mutual trust kept you from disrespecting your husband, no doubt. Love fulfils the law, as the Scripture tells us. That is, even without us being conscious of the specifics of our duty, if we LOVE one another we will not go far wrong in the details.
But we cannot rely on loving one another all the time. We are sinners by nature and can so easily fool ourselves that we are doing good when in fact we are being selfish or otherwise foolish. Like the speed signs and the fines if we ignore them, we need specific instructions about how to relate to one another and warnings about the dangers of not doing so. The Bible gives us God’s instruction on the matter. He tells us how the man and wife are to relate. If we think we know better and put that into action, we will be sorry. If we acknowledge the Author and put it into practice we can expect great blessing. Even if we don’t want to acknowledge the advice, but generally live by it, we can benefit from it practically. I’m glad you had such a happy experience.
March 4th, 2010 at 7:33 pm
Jim
‘Oh, and it’s not Evolution’s problem to explain how life began
- That’s Abiogenesis’ domain.
See the entry at Wikipedia for a detailed explanation of the theories.
There are still gaps in our understanding but we continue to make progress.’ ‘I meant to add that I think it is quite possible that by the time our grandchildren are our age, we humans will have advanced our understanding of all that abiogenesis describes, to the point where we will be able to “create life” from inanimate materials in the laboratory. Whether we choose to do is is of course a different question!’
Well, it is evolution’s problem in reality. It’s all very well wanting to hold to the theory of evolution is isolation from the big picture, but credibility demands some explanation as to how evolution could have began. I appreciate this gap in the story does not exclude the theory as such – for all science has gaps in understanding. We expect those gaps to be filled by future knowledge – but the gap may be there because the theory is false. And this gap – abiogenesis – is an immense one.
It is also coupled with the problem of billions of years of supposed increase in specified complexity, contrary to what we expect from entropy.
Criticism of evolution is a minority position among scientists – but the sad thing is the attempt by the scientific establishment to pretend their is no dissent. Opposing arguments are written of as ‘non-science’, despite being argued on the science level by scientists just as qualified to speak as those among the evolutionists. It would be good for society to have a lot less trust in establishments, the scientific one included. ‘Test all things’ should be the rule for self-respecting humanity.
March 4th, 2010 at 11:03 pm
@John: – Concerning evolution, I’m afraid the only thing your remarks show is that you’re clueless about science.
The word theory used scientifically means something very specific: a hypothesis that is capable of repeated factual testing. Anyone, anywhere should be able to test the same facts and get the same result. Any fact which proves incompatible with a scientific theory causes damage to the theory. *Not* to the fact.
The holes in your scientific education are far too large for me to try to fill here. You don’t want them filled and I’m not qualified. All I can say is that the errors you think you’ve found aren’t errors at all.
You write: “Well now nearly 200 years since not one intermediate skeleton has been found!”
That’s not true. A dinosaur with feathers featured in the news only last month. I saw it in The Times but it was international. This isn’t the first intermediate by any means. The pigments found in the reptile/bird’s feathers were chemically the same as those in the feathers of birds today which means they can work out what it must have looked like.
http://io9.com/5465268/new-research-reveals-dinosaur-coloration-for-the-first-time/gallery/
Intermediates abound! Has no one ever told you about your appendix? There’s an intermediate stage right in front of you! It’s a vestigial remnant of a function now obsolete. Actually a number of features in human beings are still evolving, but I won’t go on.
DNA, discovered long after Darwin, reinforces the validity of evolution as a theory. He didn’t invent evolution, he just described the process. DNA reveals that you and I share genes not only with primates but with invertebrates and plants. Scientists today accept evolution in much the same way they accept gravity. So far it fits all the facts – a long time and every fact. If at any point it didn’t – if *any* fact showed it to be in error – the scientists will ditch the theory. Not the facts.
DNA based science is providing data on the speed and exact nature of evolution in species. For example, American scientists have discovered through DNA that “the polar bear is an evolutionarily young species that split off from brown bears some 150,000 years ago and evolved extremely rapidly.”
http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/245996/experts-say-polar-bears-descended-browns
If you reject evolution, you have to reject DNA and all its related science. Ignore evolution and Creationism is still scientific nonsense. Geology, carbon dating, much of physics, astronomy, all of biology and of course the whole fossil record: none of these is compatible with literal Creationism.
The Swedish botanist you quote has been dead for more than 50 years but lingers on because he’s one of the only 20tj century Creationist scientists. He also believed that:
“at various periods in geological time, violent revolutions have destroyed all the earth’s biota, only to have living forms reconstituted by a sudden coming together of organic molecules to form gametes possessing the capability of developing into some highly complex form such as a pine tree, and elephant, or a man.”
Look up the crazy old coot here: http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Nils_Heribert_Nilsson
I suppose there may be a few Creationist scientists outside Creationist institutions. However it’s a belief that can only be maintained by those whose work doesn’t involve anything to do with biology or time in the sense of geology or astronomy.
Certain aspects of inorganic chemistry, I suppose, might just be feasible, though nothing related to fossil fuels. Mechanics, I suppose. Outside these narrow parameters, a belief in Creationism is incompatible with professional standards.
There are, however, many scientists who are Christians, who see no conflict between a belief in God and the facts, and who respect a lovely old myth when they see one. We owe to ourselves and everyone else to point out that it is possible to be both rational and a Christian.
There’s nothing wrong with myths. Everyone’s got them. The work of anthropologists and archaeologists reveals that Creation myths are common in primitive societies. Early people (and isolated tribes even now) invented stories to explain their world, themselves and their lives. These myths are sometimes bizarre, often beautiful.
The Bible provides our culture’s creation myth and, as such, has been the inspiration for much creative work: art, poetry, music. But it’s myth.
March 4th, 2010 at 11:19 pm
Ian Major writes: “Criticism of evolution is a minority position among scientists.”
Criticism isn’t relevant in terms of scientific theory. You don’t criticise a scientific theory. If you think it’s wrong you test it. The theory of evolution has, so far, been valid. It meets the facts. The point about scientific theory is that if facts challenge the theory it is the theory that will change, not the facts.
A scientific theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.
Any scientific theory must be based on a careful, rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts.
A fact is something supported by unmistakeable evidence. Facts may be interpreted in different ways by different individuals, but that doesn’t change the facts themselves.
Theories may be good, bad, or so-so. They may be well established by the facts, or they may lack credibility. Before a theory is given any credence in the scientific community, it must be subjected to the peer review process.
The peer review process means that the proposed theory must be published in a legitimate scientific journal to provide the opportunity for other scientists to evaluate the information and publish their conclusions.
Creationists refuse to subject their “theories” to peer reviews, because they know they don’t fit the facts. Creation scientists are not scientists. They are Biblical fundamentalists who can not accept anything contrary to their religious beliefs.
There’s a college in Texas handing out Creationist science degrees. As these aren’t accepted by any other educational establishment they’re completely useless, apart from teaching people Creationism.
Anyone taught Creationism as science will be unable to follow careers in science or medicine, and will have issues in many other workplaces too.
Creationism should only be practiced by consenting adults in private. It has no place in schools or in the Church of England.
For Ian Major to write: “‘Test all things’ should be the rule for self-respecting humanity” in this context is laughable and only reveals just how poorly equipped Ian is to deal with the issues he raises.
March 4th, 2010 at 11:59 pm
@Ian Major: I’m really fed up with your dishonesty. I can’t be pleasant.
First there’s the divorce rate. If Christians have a higher rate of divorce than atheists then, yet again, they must be the wrong sort of Christians. Do you not see this as a recurring motif? If you don’t like something, it’s always because others are doing it wrong. There’s a word for this. Actually, it’s more than a word. It’s a diagnosis.
You write: “many who profess to be ‘born again’ Christians actually behave little differently than unbelievers. I suggest that most of this is because they ARE unbelievers. The culture of easy-believism has swamped much of Evangelical Christianity in the USA. ”
Always, always go back to the source. If you’d bothered to check the link you’d have seen that, as I’d expect, the people who did the poll took care to define these groups. What Gallup called “Born-Again” were not easy-believers. They defined them specifically as religious conservatives. What I’d call fundamentalists. Like you.
The Creationists, the patriarchs, the literal believers I find so repellent: they have a significantly higher divorce rate than liberals like me. And atheist marriages are even less likely to break down. As my husband used to say: “Answer that and stay fashionable.” And you can’t.
Secondly, and here you have hugely offended, get your sticky little hands off my marriage. To try re-writing my life to suggest that my happy marriage is proof that in some unconscious way I must have been observing my ordained female role is beyond disgraceful.
My husband, a passionate feminist and liberal, hated men with your sort of views and loathed the sort of Christianity you represent: the need to dominate based on fear, the greedy clinging to historic gender privilege. We were a team, a joyful equal team, something your twisted paradigm can’t begin to match or even, from what’s be written here, properly imagine.
March 5th, 2010 at 8:16 pm
Sophie
‘First there’s the divorce rate. If Christians have a higher rate of divorce than atheists then, yet again, they must be the wrong sort of Christians. Do you not see this as a recurring motif? If you don’t like something, it’s always because others are doing it wrong. There’s a word for this. Actually, it’s more than a word. It’s a diagnosis.’
No, Sophie, it is a statement of the reality I see before me. I’m a member of an Evangelical church and have fellowship with dozens of other such churches nearby. The divorce rate among believers is very small. The divorce rate among my unbelieving neighbours is much larger.
‘Always, always go back to the source. If you’d bothered to check the link you’d have seen that, as I’d expect, the people who did the poll took care to define these groups. What Gallup called “Born-Again” were not easy-believers. They defined them specifically as religious conservatives. What I’d call fundamentalists. Like you.’
Maybe the concept of conservative is different than mine. It certainly is when applied to many ‘fundamentalists’ I see on American TV. Those folk just take up and put down what bits of the Bible suit them at the time. A bit like you are suggesting is the proper procedure regarding the NT doctrine on woman’s role.
‘The Creationists, the patriarchs, the literal believers I find so repellent: they have a significantly higher divorce rate than liberals like me.’
Not the ones I know. I’m open to correction, but all I have seen is the easy-believers, not those one would historically call conservative.
‘And atheist marriages are even less likely to break down.’
Again, I’m compelled to trust the evidence before my eyes than Barna. But I suppose it could be my definition of ‘atheist’. I understand by that anyone who says there is no God/gods, rather than those who make a big issue of it (like Dawkins, for example).
It would be interesting to check out the marriages of famous atheists and see how they fared. The several I checked just now show no such fidelity as Barna suggested.
‘As my husband used to say: “Answer that and stay fashionable.” And you can’t.’
I’m open to explanations why my experience is so contrary. Is Northern Ireland radically different from the USA in this matter?
‘Secondly, and here you have hugely offended, get your sticky little hands off my marriage. To try re-writing my life to suggest that my happy marriage is proof that in some unconscious way I must have been observing my ordained female role is beyond disgraceful.’
You suggested your happy relationship was a ‘natural’ thing – I pointed to the Christian doctrine of common grace and our intrinsic knowledge of what’s right. You need to take it up with the Bible.
‘My husband, a passionate feminist and liberal, hated men with your sort of views and loathed the sort of Christianity you represent: the need to dominate based on fear, the greedy clinging to historic gender privilege. We were a team, a joyful equal team, something your twisted paradigm can’t begin to match or even, from what’s be written here, properly imagine.’
You impute fear and greed to what I identify with respect and selflessness. Your misrepresentation of Christian doctrine does not make it any the less true. but exactly what your marriage was I admit I don’t know. That is known fully to God alone.
March 5th, 2010 at 8:53 pm
Sophie
‘Criticism isn’t relevant in terms of scientific theory. You don’t criticise a scientific theory. If you think it’s wrong you test it. The theory of evolution has, so far, been valid. It meets the facts. The point about scientific theory is that if facts challenge the theory it is the theory that will change, not the facts.’
The theory has been tested and found wanting in many areas. But it is so much part of the atheistic world-view that they refuse even to acknowledge that other scientists differ.
‘A scientific theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.’
Indeed. But evolution is not observable, given the long timespan it requires if it is true. So it is a matter of forensic science, not observable science. It is a matter of seeing how it might explain the evidence. It offers many plausible explanations, but it also fails to account for many others.
‘Any scientific theory must be based on a careful, rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts.’
Absolutely. I’m glad you point that out. It is often neglected by those who insist evolution is a fact.
‘A fact is something supported by unmistakeable evidence. Facts may be interpreted in different ways by different individuals, but that doesn’t change the facts themselves.’
Indeed.
‘Theories may be good, bad, or so-so. They may be well established by the facts, or they may lack credibility. Before a theory is given any credence in the scientific community, it must be subjected to the peer review process.’
Indeed.
‘The peer review process means that the proposed theory must be published in a legitimate scientific journal to provide the opportunity for other scientists to evaluate the information and publish their conclusions.’
True.
‘Creationists refuse to subject their “theories” to peer reviews, because they know they don’t fit the facts.’
Creationists found that their material was not accepted, not for scientific reasons, but for ideological ones. They mostly peer-review among their own scientists now. but some of their stuff does get through secular peer-review, if it is disguised enough.
‘Creation scientists are not scientists.’
Really, Sophie, you ought to check the facts before you make such outlandish claims. A quick google would through up many world-class scientists who are creationists.
‘They are Biblical fundamentalists who can not accept anything contrary to their religious beliefs.’
Maybe that is because they have not found anything contrary to their beliefs.
‘There’s a college in Texas handing out Creationist science degrees. As these aren’t accepted by any other educational establishment they’re completely useless, apart from teaching people Creationism.’
Maybe so – but there are world-recognised colleges where creationists graduate from. Indeed, Kurt Wise earned his Ph.D. under evolutionist Stephen Gould:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/fossils.asp
‘Anyone taught Creationism as science will be unable to follow careers in science or medicine, and will have issues in many other workplaces too.’
Nonsense. Creationism holds to all of know science. It differs on the interpretation of material evidence, but not on anything observable. I know several such scientists in the UK – Andy McIntosh, for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_McIntosh_(professor)
‘Creationism should only be practiced by consenting adults in private. It has no place in schools or in the Church of England.’
I note your desire to suppress dissent. But it should not surprise you to know that Creationism was the historic view of the Christian Church, including Anglicanism. That they have long ago abandoned this Biblical doctrine is no surprise, as they hardly have any beliefs left.
‘For Ian Major to write: “‘Test all things’ should be the rule for self-respecting humanity” in this context is laughable and only reveals just how poorly equipped Ian is to deal with the issues he raises.’
It seems from the above that it is you who haven’t done your homework. Feel free to disagree with Creationism, but at least get your facts right.
March 10th, 2010 at 8:10 pm
Sophie [ and anyone who believes astounding life on earth come from nothing?]
I would point at your dis respect to me .[ ie clueless -insult]You say im wrong , then admit that you are not a authority to science [Sounds like blind faith here]
I would point out that evolution is a religion for athiests trying to prove God a myth, so they can do what they want . [and some christians in the past not having answers.]
There are two scientists in the Church where i worship both have now rejected evolution .
Do not think that if 60% believe something then this must be true !? i see your type all the the time thinking you are so clever , anyone who disagrees is insulted , insteaed of reasoning
Iwould point out that the fossil of the dino was not feathers but folds of skin. And the same dna as fingernails
However this still would not be valid as a missing link ,as there are trillions of species here right now [ some have died off and not evolved]
these are also WELL FORMED/DESIGNED species for there environment— not a missing link . Again you miss the main point ! There should be if it is true millions of missing links -right now !
On vestigial organs ie; The so called tail bone on a human .There are 9 muscles that attach to this bone -so it is not a vestigial !
Some believe that the whale had a pelvis ,thinking it was once a land animal ? This is proven to be an anchor point for muscles on the whale , without such they cannot re -produce.
If there was such a thing as vestigial organs ,is’nt losing something the opposite of evolution? [appendix]
You say you won’t go on . Thats because you can’t
You say i am clueless about science ? Do you know me?
Science and the word of God go hand in hand. There are many scientists of the the past and now who were great inventors who believed in creation too. [Although you would look for faults in these brilliant men , knowing there is faults in every body -even saint richard dawkins!
If there was in the past a world wide [as said in the Bible]flood , you would expect to see many fossils trapped in lime stone and sandstone
And what do you see ? many fossils trapped in limestone and sandstone.
The word science means something you can observe and measure .
Evolution cannot ,as it happened in the past . Each scientist argues over the dating methods . Once a living mollusc was carbon dated to millions of years old , but it was still alive !
I do not reject DNA [Where do you get that idea fron?] i endorse it . My God designed it as the blue print for life and design.
The word of God says ‘ Created each to there kind ‘ from all seeds [includind the human seed] You see inside the acorn is the blue print for the Oak tree , which has always been an oak tree , and never an Elm tree !
You my dear woman are dis respecting the word of God , by calling it a myth and also believing God was ignorant and did’nt know what he was doing from the start ![ In the beginning God Created the world]
And darwin only had an idea only, as the word Theo’ry comes from the word God = Theos [Greek] means also ‘behold’
Yes check out www answers in genisis.org [as this not the subject]
On the subject of divorce ; Its te last 50 years of feminism that ties in with that . Remember they actively encourage that as well as the murder of unborn human beings.
On the subject of helping each other out , that is no problem for me . But when it comes to the word of God then the man must according to scripture be the priest of the house.
Have you not noticed the adverts now [ inspired the the women into media courses available for feminists etc] Most of them show men to be completely weak and pathetic.
Well i hope your proud of yourself feminists ?[ Germane Greer etc] ; from you is bourne the male hoodie , knife crimes , shootings etc
Thet should be encouraged to be the bread winner , instead of this garbage of women into construction etc
I am a gentleman and respect true ladies , but pray for the laddettes
I Realise you have been brought up in this liberal teaching from the way you talk .May God show you his word of truth
Love in Christ
John
March 15th, 2010 at 9:15 am
Sophie, Be humble enough to learn from John. Call upon God to grant you saving faith and having it you will read the Scriptures you appear to reject
with the scales removed from your eyes. John mentions Professor Andy MacIntosh – to know him is a privilege and to hear him explain his topic and expound the Scriptures is a pleasure you ought not to miss.
March 15th, 2010 at 7:03 pm
“Being justified freely by his grace.” Romans 3:24
And it is because grace is free it can reach us. How free is the sun in sending forth its enlightening, warming beams; how free the clouds in discharging their watery treasures; how free the dew in falling from the face of heaven; how free the wind in blowing where it listeth. Now these are scriptural types and representatives of the free grace of God. It shines as freely as the sun; drops as freely as the rain; falls as freely as the dew; and blows as freely as the wind. But not in grace as in nature to all men. I mean not that; but all to whom it comes it comes freely. And whenever it so comes it communicates precious things with it. As the sun lights and warms, as the rain fertilises, as the dew softens, as the wind invigorates, so it is with the grace of God which comes out of the fulness of Christ. It enlightens the understanding, warms the heart, fertilises the soul, softens the spirit, and invigorates the whole new man of grace. And all this grace does freely, without charge or cost, without money or price, wanting nothing, asking nothing from us but a kindly return. The best debt to a benefactor is the debt of gratitude; the best return of kindness is the return of love; the best acknowledgment of a favour is good words and suitable deeds. The best thanks which the earth can give to the sun, rain, dew, and wind of heaven is to be fruitful—to manifest by the goodness of the crops, the goodness of what falls from heaven upon it. So it is in grace: “Whoso offereth praise returns for grace.glorifieth me” (Psalm 50:23). A believing, loving heart, a prayerful, thankful lip, and a holy, godly life are the best returns for grace.
J.C. Philpot – 1802-1869
March 21st, 2010 at 5:38 pm
So there we have it . No answers to the completely brain dead feminists thinkers. Who seek to bring this trash into the church . These are the pick and mix christians ,whom God will judge.
As a reminder this has not worked for the last 40 odd years, and will never work.
Thank God for men with back bone [ That have not been feminised ].
Men whose role model was Jesus – who loved with a passion [ sinners , prostitutes etc]and yet was strong when he needed to be ; see the the temple clearance !
In the beginning God created and he saw that it was GOOD .
Q; What part of this do you not understand ?
there is time for huminists and seculists , but who betide those who twist God’s word for their own agenda[ who say they are Christian !
I say this with Love .
eg; What woould you say if you seen a blind person walking towards the end of a cliff with a 500 metre drop ?
Would you say
[a] I love you lets agree to differ ?
]b] Please do not go that way because you will die?
Love in Christ
John
March 21st, 2010 at 6:59 pm
John,
1. You write in a way which can only be read as insulting to many people who share your faith, however different their interpretation; and then you declare that you “say this with Love” as if that excuses you. It does not.
2. The reason why those who do not hold your views stop debating with you is not because of the strength of your argument. It is because your views are incoherent, and because you will not open your mind to any alternative view, no matter how well argued.
In this kind of debate there may be a meeting of minds or there may be confirmation of an existing position. There are no winners, and the only losers are those who do not learn anything from the debate.
P.S. Evolution is NOT a religion, and atheists have no need to use evolution to disprove God.
March 22nd, 2010 at 9:24 pm
Dear Jim
1. I’m not insulting at all. I just [Like Jesus & John the the baptist ]do not beat about the bush . Knowing that eternal consequences are at stake ( See the blind man parable i last wrote) ie; If you love the blind man you would say something or at least try to warn that the drop was ahead ! And so with love and boldness, i say it Jim
2.If you read way back . Iwas insulted for touching a nerve i believe in the feminist logic [ Evolution is another issue ]
My mind is well open to logic . I have many books on my bookshelf.
You say my views are incoherant . Where do you find the standard to to judge my view incoherant to say yours ,or feminism is’nt etc etc?
I’ve seen some very well written letters including Sophies’ part of talking about near death expriences and the many testamonies of it . Where we disagree is as a Christian ;you believe every word to be of God , but not to pick and mix .
3. Have you not seen the last 50 years ? It is the rights of every single creed Inc Gays, Women, Schoolchildren . But hey what about the rights of the unborn child[ human]? And the rights of men to have the child ? And not abort it ,if e wanted to bring the child up?
What about the rights of a man to see his children after seperation etc etc
You know Jim we have the rights of everything , except men ! And im standing in that gap . I know a lot about thhe pyhsicological problems today, ie ;Women becoming macho and un lady like and men mixed up !
The problem lies in not reasoning together . nb( Not War ) the word of God says “Let us reason together “.
Although you are not a christian dear Jim, you maybe not understand that it’s wrong to agree to differ . Thats why the Christian Church which agrees to that ,has so many schisms ( from our point of view)
Ps Evolution is a religion because no one was there at the big bang , or when all the millions of male and female species (Perfectly matched to each other )suddenly crawled out of the water at the same time ,And nothing decided to have a [miracle of ] womb , and nothing decide that the male species in trillions of species would have a sperm to make more offspring !!!!??
Now you need faith to believe that 5*%!¬£$))”"^)
So it is a religion .for those who do not want to believe in a Master designer God
So as thet can do what they want
I appriciate your reply Jim
God bless you my friend
John
March 23rd, 2010 at 11:08 am
John,
I stand by the points I made in my previous email. You may choose to ignore or dismiss them, but please reflect on them and on the way that your posts might be perceived by others.
I really don’t mind what you believe, but a number of the contributors to this thread have sincerely tried to at least open your mind to other views. They are not necessarily asking you to change; just to understand their point of view.
Your responses do not appear to demonstrate that you have really understood their posts. On the contrary, you appear to choose instead to erect a thick wall of dogma and wishful thinking around your view of the World, and to close your ears to anything that appears to threaten this.
As I said in my previous post, it’s very hard to have a rational dialogue with you because of the incoherence of your posts. Let me define incoherence so that we are both clear exactly what I mean: “lacking in clarity or organsation; unable to express oneself clearly; inarticulate.” I am not referring to the validity of your arguments, but your way of expressing them.
Regarding Evolution: If you will not open your mind to anything that does not support your closed views, then I suspect I am wasting my time trying to explain why you harbour so many false assumptions about Evolution. I can also easily prove why Evolution is in no way comparable to a religion, but I think it would be pointless, as you are clearly not willing to acknowledge any views which are at variance to those you hold
So, as you say, there we have it. I hope we have all learned something. I know I have.
March 24th, 2010 at 7:33 pm
Dear Jim
The opposite is true . And i could write your letter to you ! I pray God will open your mind to the truth before it’s too late .
My points are very clear Jim ,and the way i express them . They get straight to the point without waffling and padding sentences
You mention other contributers forgeting that some agree with me .
Although im not really trying to score points Jim , i genuinely believe eternal life is at stake for you and jugement for those that alter Gods word. Some might Like the Ostrich put ones head in the sand .This however will not stop the Leopard from eating it.
I sincerly pray that minds will be opened Jim
I dont think you could explain my last letter, of how Trillions of creatures (Allegedly from evolution) form out of nothing into something without a grand designer.
And that on this planet with trillions of creatures they are all mostly male and female perfectly matched for each other to reproduce [ these cannot come be chance ,no matter how many yaers you throw on it]
Genesis 1 v 27, So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him ; male and female created he them.
We all have views Jim thats the whole point of this blog even .However when it comes to standards , i base mine on the Holy written word of God [Which i do not expect you to believe ]
There is a story of two men walking by the ship yard . One said to the other “See that ship over there ?, That for no reason at all came together from nothing for something .First the iron for some unknown reason came off the the ocean floor , then over another 10 million years rivets apeared to keep it together , then a tornado brought three funnels into being – all the correct size and for a purpose and function.
Then ove a trillion years wooden decks perfectly cut and varnished fell into place , at the same time portholes then an engine [which without any precision would not work at all] then over another million years glass for windows , flag poles, and last , but not least, a captain to guide the ship “!
The other man looked at him and said “Have you lost your mind “? That had a designer and builders behind it
He replied, “Well that’s what you believe with athiest evolution”!
Well i will not insult your intelligence ( Unlike dawkins)
Pray God opens your eyes dear special Jim
John
Ps im learning things at a vast rate
March 24th, 2010 at 7:42 pm
Jim
Its your view that your entitled to have ie; That i am inarticulate .
Only when i spoke on a radio show recently , there were people saying the opposite . So again its where a person get’s ones standards to measure from and to judge, and to your opinion.
My standard is the word of God
God Bless you
March 24th, 2010 at 8:56 pm
What can I say?
OK John. I give up. You win. Go on thinking what you will.
By all means decide not to believe me when I tell you that the version of the theory of evolution that you have been fed is a travesty of the truth.
You are free to carry on making bizarre and baseless quotations that you believe demonstrate the absurdity of evolution, but which in reality only prove that you do not yourself understand it.
You are free to think that evolution is a religion, if that helps you, even though it’s a logical impossibility.
Go on telling others that they must open their minds, even though arguably it is you who needs to open yours.
I would exhort you to learn more about the reality of evolution by reading articles that are not written by creationists/Intelligent Design advoates. You might also like to learn more about what atheism is really about.
I wish you well.
Jim
March 31st, 2010 at 5:48 pm
What can i say dear Jim? You believe in the fairy tale for adults ie Evolution -blind faith. (I’d love to hear your version Jim?) There’s nothing else i can really say , only that God blesses you and draws you to his Son Jesus . As this world is drawing to a close . But those who believe in Jesus , repent of their sin are baptized will inherit an everlasting Kingdom ! A world without fears tears and pain !
Also Jim as told i read what darwin said see previous -He could not proove he said . Also so he said to think of an eye being formed by chance was absurd . Can you not see that Jim ? An eye more complex than a camera that was designed/created ?
God bless you dear Jim
John