I shouldnt be suprised at this point...

[eclectics]

I would say that it does. Remember, when the term "the church" is used in it's broadest sense, as the term "the church" is used in the Bible, it means the ENTIRE body of believers, not several bodies of believers broken down by denomination. The church is given 2 commandments in the NT - first, love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind, and second, love your neighbor as yourself. Scripture is also clear that we are to lovingly confront other believers (i.e. other members of the general "church") when we see actions that are contrary to the teachings of Scripture. That doesn't mean that Catholics can only show Catholics, Methodists only show Methodists, or Episcopalians only show Episcopalians. That means that Methodists can show Catholics, Episcopalians can show Methodists, and Catholics can show Episcopalians (all just examples, of course). Since ALL are considered the body of believers, then ALL are subject to these. Since I am a Christian, and my fellow Episcopalians who have come to a saving knowledge of Christ are also Christians, then we are now identified together as one body (see Gal. 3:28, for example). Therefore, what affects the body affects all of it, not just one part of it. For example, when a non-Christian reads about all of this and then says, "See, the Christian church is OK with homosexuality", then that's not a true statement, b/c not ALL the Christian church is, only parts of it. But we're ALL identified as Christians, so attributes that I don't agree with, and that are not Scriptural, get associated with me anyways, b/c we are ALL Christians. So, it is incumbent on the "church" in general to continually seek to strengthen the body of believers.

So you wouldn't mind Christians of another denomination coming into your congregation and your church and telling you that you are not running it the correct way and basing that statement purely on what they concieve to be the "correct" way without any discussion as to the wants and needs of your own denomination? For the umpteenth time, all denominations don't interpret the scriptures the same exact way. There is a fine line between "lovingly showing" and judgement. Maybe you should let God and the Episcopalians settle this one themselves.

 

[ncdisneyfan]

So you wouldn't mind Christians of another denomination coming into your congregation and your church and telling you that you are not running it the correct way and basing that statement purely on what they concieve to be the "correct" way without any discussion as to the wants and needs of your own denomination? For the umpteenth time, all denominations don't interpret the scriptures the same exact way. There is a fine line between "lovingly showing" and judgement. Maybe you should let God and the Episcopalians settle this one themselves.

I'm not basing my statement "purely" on what "I" conceive to be the "correct" way; it is based on what the Bible itself clearly spells out to be true. To say homosexuality is not a sin, is to throw 1st chapter of Romans out the door! There's just no way around it! And it doesn't matter what the "wants and needs" of an individual denomination are; in fact, the wants and needs of a denomination SHOULD be to follow what Scripture says. If it's not, then the wants and needs of a denomination are contrary to Scripture. This doesn't have anything to do with what "I" perceive to be correct. Scripture is all too clear about it, amazingly enough. I understand your argument that all denominations don't interpret the Scriptures the same exact way, and you're right - they don't, that is true. What is also true is that some interpret them the WRONG way, and they infer meanings that just aren't there, and ignore Scripture that plainly IS there, to try to promote what they want it to say.

And just to be clear, b/c this argument is always used as well, no, homosexuality isn't the only sin in the Bible, and yes, we all sin, all the time. This just happens to be the topic of discussion at hand. Habitual sin should not be present in the life of a believer (see 1 John). And I have no doubt that at some point, God WILL settle this one with the Episcopalians...and with everyone.

 

[cardaway]

What is also true is that some interpret them the WRONG way

Took more posts than usual to get there, but at least you didn't let us down.

 

[goofygirl]

If Jesus was a female in society back then, she would never be taken seriously and most likely killed much sooner than Jesus the man was. It does say father in the Bible, but one could write that off as part of partiarchal society of that time. Even then, I believe God is beyond the boundaries of the sexes.

I agree.

 

[ncdisneyfan]

Took more posts than usual to get there, but at least you didn't let us down.

Which all goes back to whether the Bible is the absolute truth or not. If you don't believe it is, and it's just a collection of bedtime stories written by men, then my advice would be to follow NONE of it, since it's not even divine. But if you believe it to be the Divinely inspired Word of God, then my advice would be to follow ALL of it, since it is God's instructions for us, and to not follow them is to do so at the expense of your own demise.

I'll never let you down, Cardaway, I'll always have these opinions!!

 

[eclectics]

Which all goes back to whether the Bible is the absolute truth or not. If you don't believe it is, and it's just a collection of bedtime stories written by men, then my advice would be to follow NONE of it, since it's not even divine. But if you believe it to be the Divinely inspired Word of God, then my advice would be to follow ALL of it, since it is God's instructions for us, and to not follow them is to do so at the expense of your own demise.

Then I respectfully suggest you do follow all of the Bible. I refer you back to post #300. You can not pick and choose what text to follow if you believe in a literal interpretaion.

 

[ncdisneyfan]

Then I respectfully suggest you do follow all of the Bible. I refer you back to post #300. You can not pick and choose what text to follow if you believe in a literal interpretaion.

There's always one in every crowd (though on the liberal DIS, it seems like they mostly make up the crowd).

I don't pick and choose what text to follow, b/c I do believe in the Bible as a whole, not just bits and pieces. However, there are PROPER ways to interpret Scripture, the 2 most useful being language and context. So, if people take things out of context in the Bible, or construe meanings that the original language didn't intend, then "following" the Bible to some means a whole different thing. However, that doesn't mean that BOTH are right - only one is. Most people's arguments are Levitical-law based, however, what does it say in the NT? Jesus did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. It also says that the entirety of the Law and the Prophets (which encompasses the references in post #300) are summed up in the 2 great commandments in the NT - "Love the Lord your God" and "Love your neighbor as yourself." However, it also says that if you love God, you will keep His commandments, and the NT is explicit about what is sinful and disallowed. We are no longer under the law - it existed to show us that the Law can't save us, b/c nobody can follow it perfectly. That's why Jesus fulfilled the Law, b/c we couldn't do it perfectly, only a holy and righteous God could do that.

 

[eclectics]

There's always one in every crowd (though on the liberal DIS, it seems like they mostly make up the crowd).

I don't pick and choose what text to follow, b/c I do believe in the Bible as a whole, not just bits and pieces. However, there are PROPER ways to interpret Scripture, the 2 most useful being language and context. So, if people take things out of context in the Bible, or construe meanings that the original language didn't intend, then "following" the Bible to some means a whole different thing. However, that doesn't mean that BOTH are right - only one is. Most people's arguments are Levitical-law based, however, what does it say in the NT? Jesus did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. It also says that the entirety of the Law and the Prophets (which encompasses the references in post #300) are summed up in the 2 great commandments in the NT - "Love the Lord your God" and "Love your neighbor as yourself." However, it also says that if you love God, you will keep His commandments, and the NT is explicit about what is sinful and disallowed. We are no longer under the law - it existed to show us that the Law can't save us, b/c nobody can follow it perfectly. That's why Jesus fulfilled the Law, b/c we couldn't do it perfectly, only a holy and righteous God could do that.

Great spin, but sorry, it doesn't wash. One must "Interpret" some phrases in the Bible and they can not be taken literally, as I think you finally admitted. We are in complete agreement here. We part company when you assert your intepretation is correct and mine is not. If I am capable of taking things out of context, then so are you. Non-winable debate.

 

[discernment]

There's always one in every crowd (though on the liberal DIS, it seems like they mostly make up the crowd).

I don't pick and choose what text to follow, b/c I do believe in the Bible as a whole, not just bits and pieces. However, there are PROPER ways to interpret Scripture, the 2 most useful being language and context. So, if people take things out of context in the Bible, or construe meanings that the original language didn't intend, then "following" the Bible to some means a whole different thing. However, that doesn't mean that BOTH are right - only one is. Most people's arguments are Levitical-law based, however, what does it say in the NT? Jesus did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. It also says that the entirety of the Law and the Prophets (which encompasses the references in post #300) are summed up in the 2 great commandments in the NT - "Love the Lord your God" and "Love your neighbor as yourself." However, it also says that if you love God, you will keep His commandments, and the NT is explicit about what is sinful and disallowed. We are no longer under the law - it existed to show us that the Law can't save us, b/c nobody can follow it perfectly. That's why Jesus fulfilled the Law, b/c we couldn't do it perfectly, only a holy and righteous God could do that.

I really enjoy John MacArthur. IN his NKJV study bible he gives the following commentary on Matthew 7:6

"Do not give what is holy to the dogs. This principle is why Jesus Himself did not do miracles for unbelievers(13:15). This is to be done in respect to what is holy, not merely out of contempt for the dogs and swine. Nothing here contradicts the principle of 5:44. That verse governs personal dealings with one's enemies(see note there); this principle governs how one handles the gospel in the face of those who hate the truth."

What the Episcopalians have adopted is a man-centered theology. I cant not believe that they even were going to have a vote at their convention that Jesus is the only way to salvation.

NCdisneyfan, sadly people do not understand that we are called to judge.

http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue94.htm

Furthermore, the book of Revelation does talk about churches that have "forgotten their first love" and turned away into a state of apostasy.

But our post modern society is awash in the sea of relativism. The Episcopal church is yet another example.

 

[eclectics]

NCdisneyfan, sadly people do not understand that we are called to judge.

"Judge not, lest ye be judged". Sorry, I guess Christianity has changed since I was taught judgement isn't a attribute a Christian should aspire to.

 

[discernment]

"Judge not, lest ye be judged". Sorry, I guess Christianity has changed since I was taught judgement isn't a attribute a Christian should aspire to.

Have you studied that passage in its context & entirety? Read:

http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue94.htm

Christians should practice judgement in all areas of their lives. They should aspire to having good judgement when it comes to false teachers that would try and lead them astray. Without practicing "judgement" then how does one distinguish good from bad, right from wrong? Biblical from non-biblical?

 

[eclectics]

Have you studied that passage in its context & entirety? Read:

http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue94.htm

Christians should practice judgement in all areas of their lives. They should aspire to having good judgement when it comes to false teachers that would try and lead them astray. Without practicing "judgement" then how does one distinguish good from bad, right from wrong? Biblical from non-biblical?

Yes I have, and your website's "Pastor's" commentary on how I should interpret it. Another pastor might just have a different view, which leads us back to square one. Again, non-winable debate. Lastly, I'll just say as a Christian, I am glad I have many "options" of denominations to choose from should I feel the need for organized religion. None are any more "Christian" than the others.

 

[Saxsoon]

I just see this like any other political debate. No one is convincing the other. If one gives a source, it is called bias and not worthy by the other group.

I mean, look back at how Bellhop interpreted Exodus 20 and 34, and how other Biblical theologians interpreted it.

 

[simpilotswife]

Its all about pushing the agenda. This woman gets elected to the office and this is one of the first thing she addresses?

The Episcopal Church is in serious trouble. Look for a split to come.

And the church will survive the split much as it survived its original split.

 

[georgia4now]

...how does one distinguish good from bad, right from wrong? Biblical from non-biblical?

(RELIGION) How about this: Hate the sin, love the sinner. Now, we debate "yes or no" on is homosexuality a sin? Since it's a debate for many learned scholars that has raged on for hundreds of years, we really don't know.

(PSYCHOLOGY) Are people born gay? That's a debate that's still raging on between PhD's and genetics specialists. So again, we really don't know.

(PATRIOTISM) All men are created equal; Liberty and justice for all. After doing a little research, I found that "all" is actually an Olde English word meaning "all" This we DO know.

So until the American Psychological Association, the Pope, and Billy Graham all get together and release a unified statement, it's my opinion that we should do the American thing and be careful about being too judgemental.

Just my $0.02 on a touchy subject!

 

[katytrott]

So you wouldn't mind Christians of another denomination coming into your congregation and your church and telling you that you are not running it the correct way and basing that statement purely on what they concieve to be the "correct" way without any discussion as to the wants and needs of your own denomination? For the umpteenth time, all denominations don't interpret the scriptures the same exact way. There is a fine line between "lovingly showing" and judgement. Maybe you should let God and the Episcopalians settle this one themselves.

I respectfully refer you back to post 189, I remember saying basically the same thing as NCdisneyfan said back then (not quite as well though). Granted, it wasn't in the same context as it is in now. The wants and needs of every denomination/church should be to follow Christ and the Bible. Simple as that. If the church does follow Christ, then it will certainly be a more "Christian" church as you desire. I promise there are thousands of churches all around the world that are doing just this. If a denomination has wants and needs that are outside this boundary, they become human desires.

 

[eclectics]

I respectfully refer you back to post 189, I remember saying basically the same thing as NCdisneyfan said back then (not quite as well though). Granted, it wasn't in the same context as it is in now. The wants and needs of every denomination/church should be to follow Christ and the Bible. Simple as that. If the church does follow Christ, then it will certainly be a more "Christian" church as you desire. I promise there are thousands of churches all around the world that are doing just this. If a denomination has wants and needs that are outside this boundary, they become human desires.

Again, only according to your Church's particular interpretation. Another's interpretation is that they "follow Christ and the Bible" just fine, thank you very much. Why is your interpretation regarding "wants and needs" the true and right way to do it? We are only human. I don't believe we have the right to say "My (and my Church's) interpretation of Christianity is better than yours". That's all I am trying to say and I don't understand why some don't get this.

 

[disney4us2002]

As a confirmed Episcopalian, I decided I should do some reading up on what exactly my "church" stands for and I have to admit I was really in the dark about much of it. I went to www.episcopalchurch.org and started reading. This particular subject has been picked to death, imho, and the only reason I cared originally is because I remember all too well the fallout three years ago in my small parish over the election of the gay bishop even though his appointment had no direct impact on us. We lost nearly half of our congregation, mostly 30's and 40's with children. That was an extremely tense time. This topic is far from decided and has really split many congregations. I don't see any clear cut decisions coming anytime soon and the church just passed a resolution basically agreeing not to nominate any more gay bishops (that wasn't the language used, but the meaning is the same).

However, I didn't know the Episcopal Church's position on the War in Iraq. Honestly, I never read up on it before today and it isn't something that comes up in church on Sundays. Here is the blurb from the Convention news article: "The Convention reiterated its opposition to the war in Iraq (D020) and called on Congress and the president to immediately develop a plan to stabilize Iraq that will allow U.S. troops to come home. The resolution "calls upon all Episcopalians as an act of penitence, to oppose and resist through advocacy, protest and electoral action the continuation of the war in Iraq."" This bothers me immensely. It is one thing to support peace, ending war, blah, blah, blah, but to basically tell me I should be protesting the war and voting a certain way? Nope, too far. I think I'm not an Episcopalian in my heart. Ruling out Catholicism, can anyone suggest another denomination that is conservative, traditional and ritualistic like the Episcopal church is? I like the formality and structure of a traditional service.

 

[eclectics]

As a confirmed Episcopalian, I decided I should do some reading up on what exactly my "church" stands for and I have to admit I was really in the dark about much of it. I went to www.episcopalchurch.org and started reading. This particular subject has been picked to death, imho, and the only reason I cared originally is because I remember all too well the fallout three years ago in my small parish over the election of the gay bishop even though his appointment had no direct impact on us. We lost nearly half of our congregation, mostly 30's and 40's with children. That was an extremely tense time. This topic is far from decided and has really split many congregations. I don't see any clear cut decisions coming anytime soon and the church just passed a resolution basically agreeing not to nominate any more gay bishops (that wasn't the language used, but the meaning is the same).

However, I didn't know the Episcopal Church's position on the War in Iraq. Honestly, I never read up on it before today and it isn't something that comes up in church on Sundays. Here is the blurb from the Convention news article: "The Convention reiterated its opposition to the war in Iraq (D020) and called on Congress and the president to immediately develop a plan to stabilize Iraq that will allow U.S. troops to come home. The resolution "calls upon all Episcopalians as an act of penitence, to oppose and resist through advocacy, protest and electoral action the continuation of the war in Iraq."" This bothers me immensely. It is one thing to support peace, ending war, blah, blah, blah, but to basically tell me I should be protesting the war and voting a certain way? Nope, too far. I think I'm not an Episcopalian in my heart. Ruling out Catholicism, can anyone suggest another denomination that is conservative, traditional and ritualistic like the Episcopal church is? I like the formality and structure of a traditional service.

I think you will find a lot of denominations don't advocate war. The Presbyterians are about to start their own Gay debate so I would rule them out. I am no expert on each Christian denomination's bylaws, but since you asked, I would think inquiring more into the Southern Bapist denomination might be more to your liking. It's none of my business really, but do you think this is a decision you should make without at least consulting your pastor/and or family for their thoughts?

 

[Saxsoon]

I agree with Eclectics. Talk to your pastor, family, and friends on what their views are on the subject. From there you should make an opinion. Don't ask us. Also, I suggest praying about it, and see if an answer comes to you. Only God knows your heart.