I blogged several days ago about a post by Ian Paul, on his Psephizo blog: Excellent but: "The Bible and the Gay Debate | Psephizo"
I also posted it on a Facebook thread by theologian Robert Gagnon: https://www.facebook.com/robert.a.gagnon.56/posts/10154735647805045?comment_id=10154739275945045
Rob added that concerning Ian Paul's post I commented about: "Good essay (which, incidentally, is from last year) till the end. (Btw, I recommend Ian Paul's blog at Psephizo; he is a godly person with a good head on his shoulders; overall an excellent commentator on NT and church matters.)"
That prompted me to comment further and as follows:
I agree wholeheartedly with your statement about Ian Paul and his blog, Rob. In fact, in writing about his blog post and how he wrapped it up, I pondered whether he was simply stating an open-ended question that he actually answers elsewhere, which I believe he does and with the answer that the Church should neither accept nor affirm homosexuality in the common way that expression is used by so-called "accepting and affirming" denominations/churches. He is quite simply more politic than am I.
I freely admit that I am blunt and that the opposition finds me harsh. They have referred to my way of handling the issue as "bashing," though I've lessened the use of what is generally referred to as "hellfire and brimstone" language and they use that term "bashing" extremely loosely.
In reference to the main point in my earlier comment and using another (more recent) post from Ian's blog, which post is nothing short of excellent (he's highly intelligent, educated, and motivated), we see Ian zeroing in on the issue of homosexuals pushing the Church to completely accept homosexuality and homosexual "marriage" both as on par with heterosexuality and heterosexual marriage.
He writes as follows: [indented in this post, not in the Facebook comment]
"The key phrase here is ‘we are not prepared to wait’; nothing is more important than changing the Church’s teaching on this question—not the reputation of the Church, not relationship with bishops, not any consideration of those who hold a different view, not the Pilling process of facilitated conversations. There are no grounds for conversation or negotiation.
"Jeremy must have known in April that the new post was coming up. He was also well aware of the challenge to the bishops of his living in one diocese (whose bishop was likely unwilling to take disciplinary action) and working in another (whose bishop was more likely to). In the timing of his marriage, it is quite hard to see Jeremy as the hapless victim rather than as a well-planned campaigner.
"Perhaps the one good thing coming out of the dispute about same-sex marriage is the challenge to the Church of England: what, in fact, is the shared theological basis of our life together? The Church has been happy to duck this question, since answering it will have some painful consequences. But we are now at the stage when not answering it will be even more painful."
You'll note how Ian ends the post without emphatically stating what the Church should pronounce but that the body of the article and his other posts make clear where he comes down on the issue. I will remain a little more blunt than Ian, as I think that using that device so often will leave many people hanging or misbelieving that these things really are properly debatable, so to speak. In authentic Christianity, as far as I'm concerned, there is no debate. Only inauthentic, misled "Christians" want the debate and for the reasons suggested in Ian's post and my comment here.
Of course, the authentic theology must be presented and represented as often as necessary. We must stand for the truth even at the cost of our lives, as that will save our lives and the lives of those Christians who need to see Christians standing up together.
"For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it." (Luke 9:24 KJV) [red added]
"...I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (John 14:6 KJV)To my point though is that I believe the homosexuals will fail to win the theological arguments and that people such as Canon Jeremy Pemberton will simply have to give up calling themselves Christians altogether or create a religion calling itself Christian but that is the result of a complete schism much deeper than that between Catholic (Roman and Anglo), Orthodox, Protestant, Radical Reformationist, etc.
[image added] My belief is that even if the homosexuals do form their self-styled "branch," it won't last. They will continue attempting to win the theological arguments but will always fail. That will simply see people leaving off calling themselves Christians.
It's all part of a great falling away.
"Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." (Matthew 7:14 KJV)
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)