Times Colonist Article
Apr 24th, 2008 by Kate
I’ll let this one speak for itself, I think.
Retired female priests tie knot in same-sex civil union
Ceremony in city care home highlights Anglican church’s schism of morality
Louise Dickson, Times Colonist
Published: Thursday, April 24, 2008
With popping corks and tinkling glasses, with laughter and with tears, Ruth Pogson, 83, and Beth Aime, 79, exchanged simple, loving vows in Island View nursing home yesterday.
The two retired Anglican priests, committed to each other since 1995, wanted to make their relationship legal, said Pogson.
“What we’re here for is about justice and it’s about bringing a community into an inclusive community rather than being shut out all the time,” Aime told their guests. “We’re here to hopefully bring this world somewhere where we’re all equal.”
Retired priests Ruth Pogson, 83, and Beth Aime, 79, exchanged vows at Island View Nursing Home yesterday. Though both served the Anglican faith their whole careers, the church did not sanction or bless their union.
The Anglican Church of Canada, to whom they have devoted decades of their lives, was not there to marry them or to bless them. Pogson and Aime were married in a civil ceremony in front of a small group of family and friends.
The same-sex marriage issue has created a major schism in the Anglican Church. Last June, the general synod of the Anglican Church of Canada voted narrowly not to bless same-sex unions. Still, the dioceses of Ottawa, Montreal and Niagara later decided to do so. Since November, 15 parishes — including Metchosin’s St. Mary of the Incarnation — have broken away, dismayed by what they see as the church’s liberal drift.
In 2002, the Vancouver-area Diocese of New Westminster became the first to bless same sex relationships. The Diocese of British Columbia, which includes Vancouver Island, does not. In fact, Pogson and Aime have not been allowed to preach and practice since they moved to Vancouver Island in 2002.
On Friday, Pogson, who is in a wheelchair and requires care, will move to St. Jude’s Anglican Nursing Home in Vancouver, where Aime is already renting an apartment. Like many older couples, they will live apart and visit often. They hope their union will eventually be blessed in the Diocese of New Westminster when their new parish St. Clare-in-the-Cove has permission to bless same sex couples, said Aime.
“I’m happy they’re getting married. I’m happy they found happiness with each other. Isn’t this what life is all about,” said Peter Elliott, dean of Christ Church Cathedral in the Diocese of New Westminster.
“There’s nothing new about gay and lesbian people living in committed partnerships. The difference in Canada, and I thank God for it, is that we can live openly and we can receive the support of our community and church and that makes a huge difference in the quality of life.”
At this point, St. Clare-in-the-Cove is not authorized to use the rite for blessing same sex couples, explained Elliott. Bishop Michael Ingham has said priests and congregations can bless same sex relationships if the priest and the congregation agree and they ask the Bishop for permission.
Yesterday was not the first time Pogson and Aime exchanged vows. Fifteen years ago, the couple held their “own little service” in a church on Lake Huron.
Their journey has not been easy. Aime has been depressed and felt rejected for the past five years because she can’t participate in church services. “It’s been rough. We’re two priests locked out of the church.”
Aime, who was born in Manitoba, was married and had four daughters. In 1974, she became a deacon with the Anglican Church of Canada. In 1978, she was ordained as a priest in the Diocese of Brandon.
Pogson studied theology, earning three master’s degrees from Columbia, New York and the University of Toronto. She was also ordained in 1978.
In 1977, the two met at St. John’s Divinity College in Winnipeg. Aime was a student, Pogson an instructor.
“One day she appeared in the office, arms akimbo,” Pogson recalled. “And she said, ‘Well I don’t know if you think you can be friends with a student or not, but if you don’t think so, I can wait until June because I want you for a friend.’
“And I was lonely. I needed a friend and I said ‘I don’t have to wait.’”
ldickson@tc.canwest.com
© Times Colonist (Victoria) 2008
I’m not going to comment on this other than to say that this is what Michael Ingham and his false doctrine and the apostasy of the Diocese of New Westminster is all about.
To reprise Fr. Matt Kennedy
And the husband and four children fit in where?
What a lovely and inspiring story. All my wishes of happiness to the newly wed!
If so called Christians could focus a little more on Love like these tow obviously did all their lives, the world would probably be a little better.
Just to refresh everyone’s memory, St. Clare-in-the-Cove is the parish that has the Solstice ritual. . .
Ellie M. said: “Just to refresh everyone’s memory, St. Clare-in-the-Cove is the parish that has the Solstice ritual. . .”
Would that be Christmas (which takes place at the Winter Solstice in place of a “pagan” rite of light - www.religioustolerance.org/winter_solstice.htm )?
Pauline: Unless their are intolerant of this sort of union the children will probably fit nicely. As for the husband, while the article doesn’t say we have to assume that there has either been a divorce or a death otherwise the ceremony would not have been allowed by the law.
No, that would be a pagan ritual that has no place in a Christian church. #4 - Where to begin? These two are endangering their salvation, and the ACoC is encouraging it. It’s just sad.
That was rather my point: Christian rituals are so derivative, most of them are re-interpretation of older ones.
And if you do a bit of comparative literature, you will find that Egyptian myths similar to what is the Bible but millennia older.
So Aime would be bi-sexual then? There are so many details missed out of the story. Judging by the dates it would appear that they met whilst in College and then Aime married and had children and they came together again later in 1995.
or perhaps she was so oppressed by social norms that she felt she had to conform and marry, in the process making six people unhappy because of a lie forced on them by a prescriptive society.
Like so many other people before her.
but I have to agree with you on one thing: too many details missing in that article.
“I’m happy they’re getting married. I’m happy they found happiness with each other. Isn’t this what life is all about,” said Peter Elliott, dean of Christ Church Cathedral in the Diocese of New Westminster.”
Well, like micheal Daley says, “isn’t that just spiffy!”
Peter Elliott, I am so glad you are happy, what a wonderful example you are to the Anglican Church of Canada and what it stands for. I’m sure that +Micheal and ++Fred are just as thrilled…as for me, I will go the opposite direction and hopefully with God’s Grace do my best to Serve our Father in Heaven and try if I am at all able to find a way that I can enter into Heaven when my time comes to meet Jesus on that great Judgement day. Only He will make that decision and he knows the sinner that He deals with in every one of us….
Nicholas,
First, does a society exist which is not prescriptive? The society to which I presume you are referring, though – Canadian – would probably proscribe that a gay relationship is just fine and marriage, while an option, is certainly not mandatory and is probably - redundant.
Second, The Christianizing of pagan rituals is an old, beaten to death warhorse; of course pagan rituals have been adapted for Christian use. So what? The fact that they have been replaced by Christian festivals does not warrant a Christian institution reverting to a pagan predecessor. The important thing, of course, is whether the claims of Christianity are true or not: is Jesus the Son of God; did he atone for our sins by dying on the cross; was he resurrected… etc.
Third, do you have an axe to grind? From your website, I suspect you do. That is fine – in fact I think it is courageous that you are grinding it here in hostile territory. However, from the perspective of orthodox Christianity, the actions described in the article are sinful and are being declared otherwise by those who have the job of defending the faith: black is being declared white - an illogical and unwholesome proposition.
Nicholas
Particularly on this web site, if you are trying to make a point as opposed to inflaming debate, the currency of the arguement is scripture and tradition. References to “comparative literature”, “egyptian mythology” and far left sociology don’t cut it. Nor do nasty “so called Christian” tags.
In fairness to Peter Elliot, momentarily, it happened outside the church where he had no authority. But we know the Diocese holds to Scripture just enough to keep it’s tax exempt status. There is nothing civilly improper about gay unions (although I still believe its a bad law). But these are two Anglican priests, close to meeting their Maker, in contravention of the Scripture I expect they preached. This would be grounds to believe that have renounced their ordination, sad.
Will the slanderer, the greedy, the thief and the drunk be equally happy in Elliott’s eyes once ?Ingham adds them to the list of blessed sins? When will he publish the 9½ Commandments?
Nicolas, welcome back, I think.
I do not wish to pass judgment on these women. Judgement belongs to God alone. But what I wish to comment on is how these stories evoke empathy within our culture and society.
Peter Elliot seems to think that life is all about finding happiness. After all, “Isn’t this what life is all about?” Where is the challenge to pick up our cross and follow Him? Yes, the cross for these women would have been a heavy one to bear for the past three decades and onward but the reward in heaven would have been great.
If Elliot is another apostle of ‘the good life’ (i.e. we should be as ‘happy’ as possible), he is treading on the toes of proponents of the Health and Wealth Gospel, which is unfortunately espoused by some Pentacostals and evangelicals. I wonder how they would share the stage at the end of time ;).
“St Clare-in-the-cove offered the winter Solstice Event because of our commitment to honoring diversity and inviting inclusivity. By gathering with the diverse traditions in our wider community we are able to explore the many facets of spiritual life. Our goal is to connect with people who wish to be spiritual, even if they don’t consider themselves religious, to offer opportunities where we can explore and foster our spiritual journeys together.”
Nope. Not Christmas.
This comment is really from “Bill in Ottawa”. It got caught in the spam catcher, and I don’t know how to recover it:
When both of these women were ordained, they made the following promise:
WILL you be diligent to frame and fashion your own selves, and your families, according to the doctrine of Christ; and to make both yourselves and them, as much as in you lieth, wholesome examples and patterns to the Flock of Christ?
Answer. I will apply myself thereto, the Lord being my helper.
I submit that both have forsworn themselves by visibly rejecting the official doctrine of the Anglican Church in which they hold orders.
And they are not alone…
A sad refection on what the Muddles® have wrought in the church.
Jim,
My references to “comparative literature” and “egyptian mythology” were an attempt to put things into perspective and try to remind people how much the scriptures and dogmas of Christianity are steeped in humanity and older traditions (to use your own word).
For me, even though I do not have a faith, Christ-ianity has to do with the teachings of Jesus which are in my view at odd with much that can be found in the Old Testament (even though they are part of the same tradition).
The god of the OT is wrathful and vengeful while Jesus teaches us about love and acceptance. In my view people claiming to be Christians should adhere more strongly to Jesus’ teachings rather than to those of the OT.
I use that “nasty tag” because i feel that too many people who call themselves Christians prefer to pass judgment (something that even the OT forbids, I seem to remember) and reject other people rather than welcome and love them for who they are, like Jesus, we are told, has repeatedly done.
I am also not aware of using any elements of sociology whether “far-left” or not (interesting that you should yourself use tags that I am pretty sure do not bare a positive connotation in your own mind while chastising me for my choice of word). They are simply facts of the LGBT and heterosexual (the spouses and children) experience told first-hand by the people who have lived through it for the past 60 decades or so. Since the LGBT community has started to find a voice.
David,
You are right that I have an axe to grind, but I would imagine that we all have. I am pretty certain that neither of us will manage to convince the other but in the meantime, a bit of debate can be interesting.
You are probably right, all societies are indeed prescriptive in that they are built on certain sets of values that they expect the individuals constituting them to adhere to. Those values can however inhabit different degrees of coercion. This is what I would call prescriptive, when individual are told how to behave in every minute details rather than be given freedom to do as they please as long as no one gets hurt. Canadian society, like many western societies, has thankfully moved from the one to the other. I believe that people should be free to behave as they want, worship or not whoever. whatever they want but they should also not try to force their ways on other people.
In respect of marriage, I truly fail to see how the fact that people want to join into an institution and espouse(!) its values could actually undermine and cheapen it. If anyone is culpable of destroying marriage (and I am no saying that anyone), it would be the people who are already part of it and are therefore in a position to do something against it in the way they live it.
Regarding your third point, can I try and get this straight (so to speak): “those who have the job of defending the faith”, those who have authority, those know best about most things regarding the faith, declare that something is ok, as they have done in so many other occasions over many centuries and suddenly because in this particular instance a few people happen not to agree with them, these people are wrong? Isn’t the role of a hierarchy precisely to make that sort of decisions for the faithful to follow. Aren’t they supposed to know better? If not, what is the point of them? If a faithful feels that what the leaders are saying is wrong then either he/she is him/herself wrong or they are not part of that particular religion. There is only one logical conclusion to this, isn’t there?
Argh. My three year old just helped me delete a half finished comment. I will try again.
Nicholas - Firstly, the OT and NT God are the same. The whole bible is a grand story of God’s plan for the redemption of us all.
Secondly, Jesus calls us to love, not luv, not kindness. He loves us with a tough love, that expects us to grow in holiness and the ability to love and serve others. He calls us to go and sin no more. Yes, we are told that the judgement we pass out is the judgement that we shall also receive. This is to guard against hypocrisy, and to remind us that we are to live out of spirit of humility.
I don’t doubt for a minute that the experience of many same sex attracted people with folk who call themselves Christian has been very negative, and we need to repent of that. For a different perspective, I would suggest you read some of the stories of the members of the Zacchaeus Fellowship. You can find them here:
http://www.zacchaeus.ca/OurStories.html
those who have authority, those know best about most things regarding the faith, declare that something is ok, as they have done in so many other occasions over many centuries and suddenly because in this particular instance a few people happen not to agree with them, these people are wrong?
Obviously, Nicholas and I were online at the same time, I missed this first time round. The problem with your argument is that Christians must always go back to the bible. It is God’s word to us, and we must obey it. When our leaders do something that is contrary to the clear teaching of the bible, yes, then they are wrong.
Nicolas,
Regarding our respective axes: agreed we both have them; the likelihood of one of us convincing the other is probably small, but the act of our grinding them in public could be amusing and possibly even instructive.
From a political perspective, I tend towards the libertarian and believe society should allow its citizens maximum freedom – including those who are gay, of course. That being said, since Western civilization (what’s left of it) is based largely on Judeo-Christian principles, the attempt to redefine marriage to be other than between one man and one woman inevitably stirs up Christian resistance, even for civil marriage. Is this an attempt to coercively intrude Christian values into the kingdom of man? Yes, but if you believe, as I do, that the underpinnings of our society are Christian and to remove them hastens its decline and ultimate destruction then, libertarian or not, it’s worth it.
Those who are entrusted to defend the faith – the leaders of the Anglican Church, for example - are charged with bringing their flock back to the objective truths propositionally revealed in the Bible. As it is, they are diligently explaining why, for the last 2000 years, Christians have got it wrong. They are claiming that there is no propositional revealed truth in the Bible, only the human meanderings – perhaps inspired by the occasional glimpse of God – of culturally bound savages. Therefore, it is up to them to re-interpret the Bible according to their own – enlightened they would say – cultural biases. The problem with this is that it is the equivalent of the president of the Ontario Vegetarian Society trying to convince its members that a cow is a type of vegetable and it is OK to eat beef. Now, no-one is being compelled to either be a Christian or a Vegetarian: for those that do make the claim – particularly the leaders – either stick with the principles of your belief or quit and find another occupation.
Nicolas Said:
“The god of the OT is wrathful and vengeful while Jesus teaches us about love and acceptance. In my view people claiming to be Christians should adhere more strongly to Jesus’ teachings rather than to those of the OT.
I use that “nasty tag” because i feel that too many people who call themselves Christians prefer to pass judgment (something that even the OT forbids, I seem to remember) and reject other people rather than welcome and love them for who they are, like Jesus, we are told, has repeatedly done.”
Nicolas, Nicolas: You present what the secular world would call compelling arguments, however, to the Faithful Christians, your arguments have many holes in them. You say that the God of the OT is wrathful and vengeful ~ Yup, He is….BUT He is also a God of Love.
….For instance. Did He not show great love through Joseph who forgave his brothers and brought his family into Egypt so that they would live and live abundantly while others were starving and dying in drought.
….What about the Love he showed to his faithful Servant Noah when He allowed his family to live while the rest of humanity drowned because of their stiff knecked attitude and rebelliousness?
….What about how He showed his love for His people Israel in delivering them from the hands of Pharoah and opening the red sea for them to escape?
….How about the love He filled David’s heart with towards King Saul when Saul was chasing him and wanting to kill him?
Was God hateful and Vengeful….sometimes yes, sometimes no, it appears to me that it is how you look at his love and how His people entered into Covenants with Him and why He became angry when they didn’t live up to their end of the Covenants.
While I agree that we should look to the teachings of Jesus as the basis for our Faith of Christianity, we must remember that the OT is an integral part of our Faith Also….
Also…..remember that the God of the OT is still the God of the NT but He appears more in the human entity of Jesus Christ. Remember also that Jesus Christ, The Holy Spirit and God are ALL PRESENT in the Old Testament.
Our God of today is still as wrathful and vengeful as He was in the OT (we will all understand this fully when He returns in Power to take back the earth from Satan) however, He is also as Loving and accepting (in the form of Jesus Christ) today as He was in the OT………It all depends on our ability to see the Truth of the Scriptures. We must seek the infilling of the Holy Spirit Nicolas, in order to see and understand the Truth of the Holy Scriptures because without the infilling of the Holy Spirit, the Scriptures will be clouded and not fully understood. Now, don’t misunderstand me Nicolas, I certainly have my difficulties understanding everything in the Scriptures, however when I pray for discernment to under-stand, The Lord will expose His word to me in a wonderful and most enlightening way.
As far as the Judgement thing goes, You must remember that while God (Jesus) will be the one to pass judgement on ALL of us on the great day of Judgement, He (Jesus Christ) calls on us as Christians to Judge our Brothers and Sister in Christ in ‘righteous’ judgement. He calls us to speak to our offending Brother/Sister about their ’sin’ or trangression and if that does nothing, then to take it to our Priest who will counsel them and if that does nothing then there is one option left - to remove them from the church if necessary.
Nicolas, since you profess to have no faith, I cannot judge you although my flesh tells me that I should…..God (Jesus) will do that on His Judgement day.
The two female Priests who entered into their unholy marriage should have been taken to task by their Bishop many, many years ago if it was known. They both knew better if they were priests, but they took it upon themselves to go against God’s Word (OT and NT) and both will be required to stand before Jesus on Judgement day…..
I would encourage you to seek the truth of the Holy Bible, both Old and New Testaments and I would further encourage you to seek out a Church where the truth is taught and where there is a Priest or Lay Person who can counsel you on and into the Faith of the Christian as it was in the Days of Jesus Christ and the Days of the Acts of the Apostles…..
Nicolas:
I just came across this article by ArchBishop Peter Jensen of the Diocese of Sydney (Australia) along with one of the accompanying comments. It says so much more than I can possible say. Enjoy the Read,
Is it smart to forget God’s Wrath? - Abp Peter Jensen
By Archbishop of Sydney, Peter Jensen for The Anglican Planet (h/t Anglican Mainstream)
ONE OF THE GRAVEST weaknesses of contemporary Christianity is the little attention paid to the wrath of God. We have become sentimental and have so stressed the love of God as to become unwilling to talk about his wrath.
In part this is because the culture will not let us do so. There is an outcry whenever the clear teaching of the Bible is given in public. Church members have to live in this world. They do not want their minister to talk about unpopular or divisive subjects. The minister is aware of this and he is tempted to soft-peddle on matters which are scriptural. Among them is the subject of God’s wrath.
There is an even deeper reason. Many false teachings (or lack of true teaching) begin with an inadequate idea of human sin. In the twentieth century, there were significant advances made in psychology. We learned more clearly than ever before the effect of the brain on human behaviour, the shaping we experience through our parents, and the sort of things which motivate and explain the way we operate. Much of this has been for the real betterment of people.
On the other hand, too much credit was given to these new ways of looking at human beings as though they fully explained us. What was missing was an adequate account of human evil.
God’s wrath is his holy response to our sin. It is a righteous anger at unrighteous behaviour, indeed at unrighteous beings. It is completely just. Indeed it is an expression of love, since it takes us with utmost seriousness and refuses to accede that we are like insects, not responsible for our actions. The wrath of God is one of the foundations of the whole moral and spiritual order. The Bible portrays us as living at a time when we experience a foretaste of the wrath of God.
We do not like to think of God’s wrath, precisely because we properly fear that we ourselves may be the objects of his wrath. In fact that is the very point; ‘all we like sheep have gone astray’ (Isaiah 53). This biblical teaching does not flatter the human race. Worse, it constitutes a warning to us far worse than the warnings we have received about global warming and similar catastrophes. Indeed such catastrophes may constitute something of the wrath of God because they may be the result of our abuse of the world which he has given us to care for.
It is hardly surprising that preachers do not care to delineate the biblical teaching about sin and wrath: they do not make congregations feel good about themselves. The danger is that we will have people in our churches whose ‘itching ears’ will only hope to hear what they want to hear: that all is well and the human race is not too bad after all. But we cannot even begin to understand the gospel about Jesus if we do not see that he came to save us from the wrath of God. How else can we understand the cross of Christ?
Not surprisingly the contemporary church uses three strategies to soften the offence caused by the cross. The first is to cloud the whole thing with mystery. We are permitted to say that Jesus died for us but we are not permitted to say what this means and how it relates to sin and wrath and judgement. Second is to offer some other explanation for the cross than what the Bible itself says. We are told that the cross occurred solely to demonstrate the solidarity of God with us in our suffering. Third, to ignore the cross altogether and find the centre of Jesus’ mission in the Incarnation or even worse in his present friendship with us, sung about in endless trivial songs.
The wrath of God is as real as your sin. The only thing which can satisfy the wrath of God is a satisfaction paid for your sin provided by God himself. Jesus has done this by dying for you on the cross, saving you ‘from the wrath to come.’ Whether we like it or not, that is the heart of the gospel. Turn the wrath of God into something else, or ignore it, and you will not have Christianity, but some other religious look-alike. That is our choice
Comment:
In North America, we suffer from an aberrant priesthood and set of bishops who have gone so fare as to remove unsettling scripture from the Lectionary. The scandalous controversy in the benighted Episcopal and Anglican Church in Canada is as a direct result of a hierarchy committed to ignoring or worse, amending, scripture. I expect the Wrath of God to be visited upon the authors of the current catastrophy, following that with a period of painfull cleansing of the misguided laity. I pray daily for this, and am not ashamed to say so.
Posted by teddymak on 04/23 at 08:23 PM
Nicholas,
I have said that the UCC bible is smaller than ours because they have exised sin out of it and adduced a ‘Hidden Gospel of Love” (Rev Dr. Peter Wyatt). You seem to have caught that disease.
I apologize for not giving you the chapter and the verse but here are some of the snippets that I carry around in my head that you appear to have missed: I do not come to bring peace but a sword; if your hand offends you cut it off; The assassin tested his blade against the walll…; my coming will turn father against son…; let the dead bury their dead; my coming does not change the laws and the covenants by one jot or tittle.
I(’m sure the blog community can expand this list exponentially.)
Forgiveness is contingent on repentance. If you don’t accept that, there is a chasm between us.
Or to quote the Narnia books: “He is not a tame lion.”
Nicholas
If you wish not to be a Christian so be it, but should you chose to be a Christian that is a commitment that does not allow you to pick and choose and import secular values clearly in conflict with Scripture.
OT and NT are continuous teachings and probably should have never been segregated such as they have. The culmination of the prophets is Jesus Christ. We prepare as best we can and wait for his return.
There are nominal and Authentic Christians. If I think I will not be able to stand true to my ordination vows I won’t take them.
A little background to tell you guys where I am coming from as my experience is probably not what you think it is. Being French, I was brought up a Catholic. I have most of the certificates (from baptism to confirmation) and I was involved for about 10 years in a local choral group (to simplify things). I think I can therefore say that I have a reasonably good (though certainly not deep or exhaustive) knowledge of the Bible and the Church as an institution. Though I have no faith, I also recognise the influence of that Christian (as in Jesus’) values have on who I am. When I moved to London, I somehow found myself attending a few mass services at a (progressive) Anglican church (St James in Piccadilly). There seemed to be very little difference (at least in the liturgy) with the Catholic church, although it was obviously much more welcoming and accepting.
Reading the various responses I have received on this threads, the words humility and truth have come up a few times. I have also been reminded that people should basically go back to the roots (ie the scriptures). My problem here is how much Churches, however much they claim to be the emanation of god’s will, are actually very much human and even political organisations trying to push their agenda and protect their influence for the sake of it. Their isn’t one church I think that does actually follows the Bible by the letter. All have and will pick and mix.
I have been told that I should try and attend a Church “where the truth is taught”. As far as I know, none will be claiming that their vision is not the truth. Humility also seems often to have very little to do with religion: people tell others that they have the truth, that they know better, that their ways are best.
As I said earlier however, my biggest problem with religion is that it tries to impose it’s views and ways on other people. I don’t try to force anyone to live their lives the way I live mine, why should other people thry and force their ways on me? I am also ready to fight for other people’s right to do as they please (again as long as noone gets hurt) but sadly other people don’t seem to be ready to pay the courtesy back. Which turns religions into divisive forces rather than forces of harmony. A lot of the violence that has happened in the last 2000 years has had religion as an excuse.
I am probably rambling and not making much sense. I should probably stop.
This comment was held for moderation, I’m not sure why - sorry, John. –Admin
Nicolas said,
Hi Nicolas,
I have stayed away from this thread because I have found that such discussions between, shall I say, ‘believers and non-believers,’ not to insult you personally, but merely for the most expedient way of putting it, are often fruitless, each side holding firm to their own preconceptions and discounting, a priori those of the other.
However, I sense that you are a thinking person willing to engage in reasonable and rational discussion.
You are absolutely correct about religions or religious followers too often forcing, or trying to force, their beliefs on others. That should not be the case.
I am thinking of the Biblical story of Jesus and the rich young ruler. the man wanted eternal life. Jesus told him what he should do. Apparently the price was too high for him, because he turned and sadly went away. But Jesus did not pursue him. Jesus informed him of the conditions, but did not force him. He let him go.
But the key is that to be a true follower of Jesus, and to inherit eternal life through him, there are requirements. We must accept his commandments, not insist on doing it on our own. And not, may I say, bending and twisting his commandments to adapt them to our own personal desires. Every one of us has the choice to do it his way or not. But if we choose not, then we must be prepared to face whatever consequences ensue.
Jesus also said, “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.” (Luke 9:23)
Now, leaving aside what it means exactly to take up one’s cross, I think the key phrase here is, “deny himself.” I don’t think that means we must all live ascetically, but that where there are certain of our wants, desires, passions or activities that are in conflict with Biblical teachings, we have choices to make. We can either indulge in those conflicting behaviours or we can choose not to gratify them and live our lives according to God’s desire for us. We cannot do both. One plus one cannot equal both two and three.
In short, we who call ourselves ‘orthodox Christians’ should not force our beliefs on others, but I truly believe we have the right, indeed the obligation before God, to separate ourselves from those who would name the name of Christ yet flagrantly abuse his clear teachings and his name.
We have the right to say, “We are a group of people who call ourselves Christians and are gathered into a thing we call a church. Here is what we believe. If you agree with us and want to join us, you are welcome. But if you don’t, well, just go somewhere else and let us be faithful to what we believe is true.
Nicolas, The God of the old Testament is the God of the new. Jesus Christ came to show us the Father. It is all about a love relationship . He is passionate about us . Give up religion and become a Christ follower. He loves you with an everlasting love . He sent the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth. As Rick Warren says in the Purpose Driven Life ( Have you read it?) you were planned for God’s pleasure,You were formed for God’s family, You were created to become like Jesus. You were shaped for serving God, You were made for a mission, , and it all starts with God who loved us so much that He gave His life for us to redeem us for eternity. He is risen !!Can anything be more lovely??
Nicholas
Thank you for your post #31. I must confess that I believed you were acting to provoke the Blog into extreme responses. Now that you have relaxed and shared some of yourself with us, it appears that you are just another faith pilgrim trying to find your way. As a fellow pilgrim I am prepared to share some of myself with you.
While deep into a Philosophy degree I worhiped logic and intellect. Eventually this approach bumped into my upbringing in an active Anglican parish where I had progressed to being a server. The long and short of it was that I could not extinguish the light of God in my heart by supplanting Him with logic and intellect.
My problem then was that, although I was now certain that God was in my life, I was no longer sure what that dynamic was. My solution was to read the bible. I devoured it. I read it forwards and backwards, by theme, by chapter, or just by randomly opening it. A funny thing happened: I began to get a sense of what God had in mind for me.
My next hurdle was prayer.
Now that I knew God was in my life and I was begining to have an inkling of what He intended for me, I felt I needed to get a clearer understanding of what God required of me in my daily life. After a variety of different approaches I found one that works for me.
Nicholas, I pray that the Lord shower you with his grace, open you up to his will for you, and make you whole.
Peace
I am afraid religion is not for me. I am like you Jim M very cartesian and not a spiritual person. Religious people often seem to think that they have the monopoly of morals but I want to believe that I behave just as morally (and sometimes more so) as any of them (albeit according to slightly different ideas). I try to be respectful and decent and at the end of the day I think this is what is the important think. Rather than what I do in bed and with who.
John K wrote: “In short, we who call ourselves ‘orthodox Christians’ should not force our beliefs on others, but I truly believe we have the right, indeed the obligation before God, to separate ourselves from those who would name the name of Christ yet flagrantly abuse his clear teachings and his name.
We have the right to say, “We are a group of people who call ourselves Christians and are gathered into a thing we call a church. Here is what we believe. If you agree with us and want to join us, you are welcome. But if you don’t, well, just go somewhere else and let us be faithful to what we believe is true.”
I totally agree with you. we are indeed allowed to make your own choices and live by them. What you (we) do not have a right to do is to force these choices on other people or to refuse other people to live by their own choices. (I have mentioned this idea before) and it seems to me that religious institutions forget this much too often. I would also point out that this would probably go against Jesus’ instruction to go and spread the word and try to convert people….
A few more questions/thoughts:
If we start from the oft repeated precept that god has created man with free-will, why would then god create s set of rules to curtails that free-will, and why would god create something free and then ask them to obey him. what is the point of it really? Wouldn’t be easier for him not bother? It doesn’t really seem to make much sense.
If on the other hand, you look at the Bible and its comments as a text written by men to use as tool to control masses, then it all seem to make sense. These rules now have a purpose which they do otherwise seem to have.
Humanity also seems to have this need to have something to look up to (whether it is a god, a celebrity, money or whatever else). This is, I believe an integral part of what makes us human and what helps us go beyond ourselves and create things. Codifying this urge into a religion is a neat trick for any oligarchy.
Finally there is the fear of death. And again, it makes to provide the masses with hope.
I am probably sounding very cynical but then again I suppose I am. Having seen what religion can make humans do and how it’s been used over the centuries for political purposes, can help but being skeptical.
If we start from the oft repeated precept that god has created man with free-will, why would then god create s set of rules to curtails that free-will, and why would god create something free and then ask them to obey him.
We have free will because God wanted lovers (agape), not slaves. He gave us rules for our own good - He knows what is best for us, we don’t, necessarily. Jesus preached against rules that men had added to God’s rules, but he never told us to cease following God’s rules. We don’t have the right to coerce other people - to refuse to allow people to live by their own choices. We do have the right and the duty to stand up for the Gospel, though, over and against leaders who insist on twisting it out of shape to further their own agendas.