In the news:
Pastor Ralph White of the Bloomfield Full Baptist Church in Memphis won’t bless a baby in his church unless the parents are married.
“We will do it, but not in the church setting,” he said. “We’ll go to the home or if they want to have an event somewhere, we’ll go there and do it.”
White said he hopes to send a message to young fathers: step up and provide for your family.
“Biblically speaking, a man who doesn’t take care of his children or family is worst than an infidel,” he said.
This is his way of fighting teen pregnancy...
======
My favorite comment thus far on this story?
"...but, Jesus’ mommy wasn't married to Jesus’ daddy..."
212 comments:
1 – 200 of 212 Newer› Newest»Wow, way to make a stand, Pastor White! "We won't do baptisms of children born out of wedlock! Except we will."
If a child's parents get divorced, does he revoke the baptism?
He wants to send a message to young fathers. Clearly he hasn't considered the message he's sending to young (and old) children.
I'm not entirely sure of all the details, so I'm reluctant to come down too hard on this fella/church who, on the face of it, has made a dumb decision.
But still...
Since even the most conservative churches, by which I mean denominations and their internal practices and by-laws, have surrendered any Biblically-based practice regarding divorce - about which there are far more clear teachings than, oh, say, children born outside of wedlock (like Jesus) and same-sex relations - absent a comprehensive practical evaluation and major shift, this is nothing more or less than punishing children for the alleged sins of their parents.
In all honesty, whether they are mainline or more conservative, Protestant or Roman Catholic, most denominations in this country have quite simply abdicated any serious pro-family, pro-marriage policy. For example, my wife and I, married nearly eighteen years with two children, are constantly attacked by some conservatives not because we are still together, still love one another, work hard at raising our children, who are happy, healthy, extremely smart, and have great home lives. No, we are attacked because . . . we're both politically and (allegedly) theologically to the left (actually, both my wife and I are pretty run-of-the-mill, Wesleyan-orthodox, slightly evangelical, but hardly outside any mainstream). Our reality, which bears no relationship to some of the things said to us about our family, is so "pro-family" we could be the poster-family for family values. This reality, however, doesn't matter for some people because we have a strong family and we're liberal.
Furthermore, there are few supports within our, or any, denomination for families who struggle to keep things together, for couples who work hard at their marriages.
Seriously, Dan. You should come down a little harder on this guy.
Alan,
It obviously wan't a baptism since baptist don't baptize babies. Say that five times fast.
Geoffrey,
Yup.
A minister friend of mine once remarked something to the effect of, "I can marry people, but no one ever wants me involved in the divorce."
It isn't just the mainline practices and bylaws that have abandoned pro-family, pro-marriage practices, it's the people in the pews who just want a local wedding chapel with a pipe organ, rather than a supportive community of faith.
And instead of railing against that culture, we get lectures on marriage and family values from politicians who are repeat adulterers like Newt Gingrich, Popes who cover for their pedophile priests, Archbishops of denominations founded on divorce and adultery, and Baptist preachers who want to hold the sacraments hostage.
Alan - couldn't agree more. Funny enough, this has been a complaint Lisa has made for years. The refusal of the churches to have a coherent, Biblical approach to marriage and family. She tries to enforce it as much as possible, but is really restricted by the Discipline and local church practice and policy.
Remember in 2004, when one RC Bishop said he would refuse absolution or sacraments to John Kerry because he is pro-choice? Funny that, because the RC Church, along with worshiping the fetus, was also adamantly opposed to the American invasion of Iraq, even under Pope Ratzinger. In fact, the RC Church was and is far more vocal on matters of international peace and justice than on reproductive matters. Yet, it isn't the warmongering right-wing Catholics who get barred from the sacrament, it's the moderately liberal pro-choice Catholic who gets barred.
Which means these guys are idiots, which I think is a prerequisite for being a Bishop in most denominations.
I don't see how this is in any way punishing children for the sins of their parents.
1- He's willing to bless them in another setting.
2- The kid's a "baby" and not likely to understand anything going on
3- The kid's not likely to care very deeply in later years.
Whether or not you approve of the guy's methods, he's still attempting to make a point about marriage and fornication.
Of course.
The message?
"Don't bring yer b****** children to church, we don't want 'em here. Let's shamefully hide these children someplace out of sight, not celebrate their lives."
A message as ugly and wrong-headed as sin.
"which I think is a prerequisite for being a Bishop in most denominations."
That's why we got rid of them. :)
Funny thing about this idiot is he clearly doesn't get the Baptist position on baptism, which is (as I understand it) about one's own ability and responsibility to affirm the baptism for one's own self. (Hence the tradition of not doing infant baptism in the first place.) And then this idiot turns that 180˚ and makes it all about the father.
(BTW, why is this all about the fathers only?)
Heh. His way of fighting teen pregnancy. One can almost imagine the conversation...
"You know, honey, I was thinking about having sex outside of marriage. But if we do, the local yokel won't baptize our baby, so maybe we should put our clothes back on."
Seems completely realistic that teenagers, who don't think more than 5 minutes ahead about anything, will totally be having that conversation.
Could he be any more irrelevant?
Does his church have comprehensive, faith-enriched classes on sex education for teens, along with parenting classes for parents of teens? Does his church offer counseling for singles in crisis? There are a host of questions that should be asked about this; absent more information, this is just punitive nonsense, blaming a child for the mistakes of his or her parents (or, perhaps not mistakes; a report out yesterday saw a rise in children born out of wedlock by choice, as well as a pretty significant decline in the marriage rate).
Excuse me, but two things are missing in Dan's presentation of the story (three, if you count no link to any article with more details):
1. The dude's refusing to bless the child only in the church itself. Dan's telling doesn't mention "baptism". Are you all equating the two? Does the preacher in the story?
2. The first sentence refers to the parents not being married.
Later it mentions a message to young fathers. I have no problem with that at all. Why should any of you? Has it not been the case for, like, ever, that young men are given a wink with a wagging finger of disapproval while young girls have been considered dirt for engaging in the same frivolity? Young men need to learn ASAP to be real men and control themselves and/or step up and face the consequences like men.
What's more, in Dan's poorly related tale, there is no way to assess the extent of this church's outreach to teens and proper understanding of sexuality. Perhaps, he is a liberal and thinks the schools should be doing it. We can't tell by what little Dan has presented. Is the point simply to provide a means to get to the final goofy quote? Is that quote somehow a way in which to diminish the negative aspects of illegitimate births?
Oh, I know! There's no such thing as an illegitimate child. Of course not. But the birth can be and there are far too many of the illegitimate kind in this country. The term, as well as the word "bastard", is supposed to reflect on the parents and their illegitimate act. That people also took it out on the child is more than unfortunate, but one would think that progressives would understand the connotation as it should be and might if they had not a decidedly corrupted notion of sexual morality.
""Don't bring yer b****** children to church, we don't want 'em here. Let's shamefully hide these children someplace out of sight, not celebrate their lives.""
Talk about ugly and wrong-headed as sin. How incredibly gracious that Dan takes the low road in reading this guy's mind. Perhaps (and I can't know as Dan provided no link) his message is
"To allow the blessing to take place in our church is to give tacit approval to the behavior that brought about this unfortunate child's conception."
I agree with Art that Dan's presentation of the facts is incomplete, as my last comment stated.
On the other hand, no, Art, no child is illegitimate. Indeed, since the US Constitution banned primogeniture, the whole concept of "legitimacy" as it applies to children is not recognized in the United States since it is a legal - the root of "legitimate" is the Latin word for "law" - rather than a moral label. The concept of legitimacy of children is rooted in an aristocratic system where only those legally recognized heirs have title to their father's property upon his death. Since the US does not allow this kind of thing, no, there are no illegitimate children in the United States.
Marshall...
Talk about ugly and wrong-headed as sin. How incredibly gracious that Dan takes the low road in reading this guy's mind.
As I already stated:
"I'm not entirely sure of all the details, so I'm reluctant to come down too hard on this fella/church who, on the face of it, has made a dumb decision."
The point, Marshall, is that it is an ugly portrayal of church to refuse to "bless" a child in church. It DOES give EXACTLY the message that "illegitimate" children (as IF THERE COULD EVER BE SUCH A THING IN GOD'S EYES) are not wanted.
I stated that I DON'T have all the details. From what I read, it does sound like to me that this guy is probably from a more progressive church, for what that's worth. Regardless, this is a horribly bad idea giving support to the ugly notion that children can be illegitimate and something to be ashamed of.
That's my point. Are you wanting to disagree with my point that I'm actually making? Do you think it IS a moral good to ostracize families for having "illegitimate" children?
Then make that case.
Are you purposely trying to avoid what I say? "Illegitimate" denotes the manner in which the child was conceived. It is illegitimate because the parents weren't married. What about this simple concept do you find so troubling. I believe I made clear that those who take it out on the kid are buffoons. But not blessing the child in church is NOT taking it out on the kid, particularly if the dude is willing to bless the kid elsewhere. It seems pretty plain that, as I've said, he doesn't wish to give tacit approval to the behavior of the parents. Blessing the child in the church would do exactly that.
""Don't bring yer b****** children to church, we don't want 'em here. Let's shamefully hide these children someplace out of sight, not celebrate their lives.""
That's not coming down "too hard" in your mind?
But again, you and Geoffrey don't seem to understand the term. No, it's not a legal term here and never was, except that it suggests God's law for procreation and that it should happen only in the context of a legitimate marriage. Though the term is put together with the word "child", it speaks of the circumstances of the child's conception. It is against God's law that two people not married to each other engage in intercourse.
I would like to address a comment of Geoffrey's that I somehow missed. It began this way:
"Remember in 2004, when one RC Bishop said he would refuse absolution or sacraments to John Kerry because he is pro-choice?"
He then goes on to condescendingly state the the RC engages in fetus worship. What patent nonsense lacking grace. He knows damn well that the RC reveres life, just as Scripture teaches, and it's stance against abortion flows from that.
He then goes on to say:
"In fact, the RC Church was and is far more vocal on matters of international peace and justice than on reproductive matters."
There's room for argument there, but the RC stance on acceptable means of birth control and sex outside of marriage (as well as what constitutes a marriage) is quite clear.
So this statement:
"Yet, it isn't the warmongering right-wing Catholics who get barred from the sacrament, it's the moderately liberal pro-choice Catholic who gets barred."
...is especially ludicrous on two levels. First, Geoffrey would be hard-pressed to locate any "warmongering right-wingers" Roman Catholic or not. Because some on the right understand when going to war might be appropriate, as well as be willing to do so if necessary does not indicate "warmongering" in any way, shape or form.
Secondly, "pro-choice" means tolerating the intentional destruction of innocent lives and largely for selfish reasons, making the term equal to legalized murder of children. To proudly stand for such things is to be complicit in those deaths, and any God-fearing priest, bishop or lay person would do well to encourage a change of heart by such low character people rather than to dishonor Christ by sharing the sacraments with them.
Sorry for the off topic comment, but I couldn't let such nonsense stand unanswered.
Marshall...
But not blessing the child in church is NOT taking it out on the kid, particularly if the dude is willing to bless the kid elsewhere.
My point in this post is that sort of "stand," sends the message that I pointed out - that such children are illegitimate.
I'm NOT saying that this is the intent of the church in question. I made it quite clear that I did not know enough about the church/pastor to go too far with this.
No, my point is about the message that this sort of action sends. I'm telling you that it is my opinion that many, if not most, people are going to find this a condemnation by the church of "illegitimate" children, thus pushing the church (at least THIS church) into the realm of harsh and irrelevant.
Your hunch may be that people in general will NOT see this as harsh, ugly and wrongly judgmental action toward the child. I would disagree with the assessment.
Geoffrey is right: HOW exactly is this refusal to bless children in church going to punish irresponsible fathers?
Assuming the best of this preacher, he is mistaken. It makes no sense and will not serve the purpose of reducing out of wedlock births.
It seems pretty plain that, as I've said, he doesn't wish to give tacit approval to the behavior of the parents. Blessing the child in the church would do exactly that.
?? How?
Would blessing a child in church be wrong also if the parents were greedy? If one of the parents had a drinking problem, would it be a good idea not to bless the child in church?
That makes no sense.
When exactly do you think it is wrong to "bless" a child or anyone?
What if your pastor decided that any children in a family where the father should not be blessed in church, would you consider him right to do so?
That last line should have read...
What if your pastor decided that any children in a family where the father [INSERT ONE OF MARSHALL'S SINS] should not be blessed in church, would you consider him right to do so?
Art, I will use small words so you will understand. "Illegitimate" means "not legally recognized". Children born outside of wedlock are legally recognized as the children of two parents, who have equal claim before courts of law in the US in matters of custody and all the obligations and privileges that come with parenting. It has nothing - no-thing, nada, zilch - to do with the matter of conception or birth, i.e., whether the parents were married or not. Your statement is wrong.
The rise of talk of "illegitimacy" was a way of punishing both the children and the parents for being morally reprehensible people for doing what people have always done and will always do - have sex, whether they are married or not. You may not like it; you may consider both the act itself and the outcome of such an act "wrong", "illegitimate", or what not. Pretending, however, the word has some deeper meaning for all people is erroneous (I know that's a big word, but I think you can handle it).
Dan,
I think it would be more accurate to say that the message that is received by some is that children conceived illegitimately are not welcome. That would then be a problem with the person hearing the message. The limited info of your post suggests the intention of White and the message he is attempting to send.
"Geoffrey is right: HOW exactly is this refusal to bless children in church going to punish irresponsible fathers?"
Who said it is meant to punish anyone? Nothing in your post suggests such a thing whatsoever. But, it will let future fornicators know where the church stands on the issue. It will help in the sense of communal influence, now so very lacking in our society, that such behaviors are wrong, sinful and that there is an expectation that people will act more in accordance with clear Scriptural teachings regarding sexual behavior and morality; something Geoffrey doesn't think is important anymore in the body of Christ.
Geoffrey,
Small words aren't required. You use big words all the time but fail to understand simple concepts regardless of the number of letters that make up a word.
Once more, you demand a definition that suits you, but the fact remains that the term "illegitimate child" has been in use for quite a long time with the meaning referring to the act which brought about the child's conception. As I said, fornication is against God's law, so the term is more than appropriate, though it is often perceived by the small minded as a reason to denigrate the child. I found this piece that explains the concept well in the first paragraph, though you may want to read the whole thing in order to see your own corruption as regards morality.
You seem to believe that because people have always defaulted to their carnal desires rather than seek to "be holy because God is holy" as Scripture teaches emphatically, that somehow such teachings have no worth or value in today's world. But we're living the effects of having dispensed with adherence to morality as evidenced by stats regarding divorce, abortion, STDs, suicides, etc.
"...you may consider both the act itself and the outcome of such an act "wrong"..."
God considers the act wrong, so why shouldn't I? More to the point, why don't you who gets all huffy when accused of supporting sexual immorality, which you obviously have just shown to be the case? And as I have stated repeatedly, I have not in any way considered the outcome of such immoral behavior to be wrong. It is only the consequence. I consider it unfortunate that a child be put in such situations in the first place and THAT'S wrong. (Hey! I got it! Let's just kill the kid!)
So pretending the the word does not carry the meaning I've presented is indeed erroneous on YOUR part, for you expose your own corruption by doing so. It has always meant what I've explained it means.
God considers the act wrong?
So, you have a line on how God feels about sex outside marriage? Based, no doubt on the great weight of Biblical characters who were condemned for their extra-marital sex. Like King David. Like Abraham.
No doubt Mary's pregnancy, outside marriage, would have been condemned by the likes of you, too.
This is an old argument, Art, and we disagree.
As for the question before us, absent any indication the minister in question addresses issues of sexuality in a healthy, constructive manner, this arbitrary measure does seem punitive to me. It punishes the child by refusing the communal embrace of the congregation solely because it was conceived and born outside the bonds of marriage. Graceless, loveless, it is the opposite of everything Jesus did and told us to do, likewise.
In Dan's defense: I am from Memphis, I read the full article. It was not a "news" piece; it was written by a religion columnist in response to reports of an unusually high number of teenage pregnancies in Memphis high schools. The columnist did mention the pastor's position against blessing (not baptizing) the baby in church, but then the column strayed to a discussion of helping men with felony records find jobs and become productive members of society. (That was another pastor's answer to the problem: expunge felony records so these "baby-daddies" can find jobs to suppor their kids.)
The piece ended with a reference to Mary as an unwed mother, which I thought was a bad comparison. The numerous pregnancies in Memphis high schools are NOT from divine intervention (that we know of), and Mary WAS betrothed to Joseph, so her child (although conceived pre-wedding) was born into a stable family atmosphere.
I think Marshall raises a fair question: how can we bless a child born out of wedlock without giving tacit approval to the action that created him/her?
In Memphis, the number of unwed mothers is reaching near epidemic proportions and is feeding the cycle of poverty that plagues this city.
In response to Brother Dave's question - "[H]ow can we bless a child born out of wedlock without giving tacit approval to the action that created him/her? " - is actually begged by the results of recently released census data that show an increase in out-of-wedlock births in general, as well as a decline in marriage.
How do churches respond? My own answer is simple enough - we treat marriage in the church as a special event, not a social rite. It is a privilege, rather than something churches "do". The actual sacraments, however, are a different story, and their practice should reflect the prodigal grace of the God who instituted them among us. Beyond that, standing in judgment of the larger society and culture for trends that are clearly outside its ability to change, we should define Christian marriage as essentially defined by both words.
And copious amounts of prayer for our own sinfulness and complicity in the church's acquiescence to a general depreciation of marriage as a social institution.
"[H]ow can we bless a child born out of wedlock without giving tacit approval to the action that created him/her?"
Gee, I don't know...maybe by not being so stupid as to conflate the blame for the irresponsible sex act of the parents with administering the sacrament of baptism, perhaps?
If someone is looking for a method of punishment, then excommunicating the parents seems like a better idea.
But that sort of clear thinking is probably asking too much of this pastor who thinks that refusing to baptize children in a church is going to reduce teen pregnancy and who thinks that the sacraments are something to be bargained with like indulgences.
Brother Dave asked...
how can we bless a child born out of wedlock without giving tacit approval to the action that created him/her?
While I think Alan was overly harsh in his expression of the point, I think he's right: We just don't confuse that a child being born has anything to do with the parents' possible sins.
Will we refuse to bless a child in church whose parents drink to excess? Will we refuse to bless a child whose parents are greedy?
Why would we withhold a blessing from a child for the sins of the parents? I can't see how they're related.
Brother David also said...
I am from Memphis, I read the full article. It was not a "news" piece; it was written by a religion columnist
After seeing a brief blurb on this story, I did a search to find out more and read a few different articles on the topic, none with much in the way of information beyond what I have posted.
We certainly have a problem with absentee fathers in our society. I just don't think that not blessing their children in church is in any way a positive method of trying to deal with the problem, at least not if one is interested in results.
Whenever a child is born, he or she is a beloved child of God, innocent and dearly loved by the Creator and certainly (hopefully) by those in the community and family. To bless that child (which I imagine means to pray over him/her, pray for him/her, dedicate the church to being family and community TO that child), that is a good thing.
My question would be: What POSSIBLE good could be served by refusing to bless a child in the church?
It's hypocritical to me that the pastor will "bless" the child in a venue outside the church, but not in the church. If two or more are gathered together in the name of Jesus, He is with them. So what difference would it make if the "blessing" took place in the church or in a lake or in a home or in the country or wherever?
I agree, Marty, blessing a child outside the church is the same as blessing her/him inside the church.
But you guys are dancing around the question. Pre-marital pregnancies and single-parent homes (with multiple children) is a real problem here, well beyond the national trend. We have sex education in the schools, condoms are not hard to find. But still, we have this problem.
What is the answer?
Not refusing to bless the child in church.
Again, I would have to wonder: HOW would that help?
It would help by taking part in the communal support of virtue. This is something that our culture has abandoned. It has the most to do with the depths to which morality has already sunk in this society, and yes, the church is not without its share of blame (though I would qualify that by saying the more fundamental churches continue to preach purity as it once was preached). Though I wouldn't go so far as to say that by itself this pastor's idea will have great impact, as piece of a larger effort it most certainly will help. Secular "teaching" about "safe-sex" hasn't helped at all.
Dan asks:
"Will we refuse to bless a child in church whose parents drink to excess? Will we refuse to bless a child whose parents are greedy?"
The child's conception is not directly connected to whether or not the parents drink or are greedy. It's conception is directly tied to their engagement in fornication, which is the sin on which the pastor is focusing.
Also, there's nothing hypocritical about blessing the child elsewhere as this shows that the child is indeed not to blame. The message is sent "We cannot give tacit approval to the sin by blessing the child in the church" and a second message is given by blessing the child elsewhere. "This child is still worthy of God's blessing." (It ain't perfect, but if the parents didn't commit the sin, this wouldn't be an issue.)
Geoffrey asks:
"So, you have a line on how God feels about sex outside marriage?"
Yes. It's called "the Bible". Funny. I thought you had skimmed through it once or twice. Had you really done so, you could not have dared a statement like this:
"Based, no doubt on the great weight of Biblical characters who were condemned for their extra-marital sex."
No. Based on the various passages that speak of fleeing immorality. Look 'em up.
And BTW, I don't recall that King David was given a holy pat on the back from God for his affair with Bathsheba. Perhaps you're reading a different Bible.
Marshall...
The child's conception is not directly connected to whether or not the parents drink or are greedy. It's conception is directly tied to their engagement in fornication
I have heard many people say that there WAS a direct tie between drinking and perhaps irresponsible "fornication." So, by your reasoning, since there is a tie, you should not bless those children. Also, I've heard people make the case there is a tie between watching TV and having children too young. So will you deny blessings to those who watch TV?
Blessings are never wrong. If you wish to take that position at your church, do so. Just don't call it a "Christ"-ian church, since Jesus said, "Let the children come unto me.
So now "hunches" are an important argument for you. I see.
Apparently I wasn't clear enough for you. Fornication is the act in question here, not drinking. The child's conception is a direct result of that. Even if they were tanked, the conception is not a direct result of drinking. Try to pay attention. The pastor is making a specific correlation here.
And again, there is no problem with the concept of blessing the child, as the child will still be blessed. That the point can't be made in a manner pleasing to the Dan Trabues of the world is indeed unfortunate, but as the blessing is still offered, it does not confound any doctrine whatsoever.
Tell you what, Marshall, find some biblical support for choosing to NOT bless a child in a church and I'll grant that you might have a point. Some verse, some passage, some theme from the Bible that suggests anywhere that we ought NOT bless some children in a church service.
Do you have one single solitary biblical reason for supporting this ugly whim?
No?
Then your entire support for this action is your hunch that it will somehow (so far unspecified) discourage out of wedlock babies?
Okay, then bring some support for that argument.
Anything?
No?
So, having NO biblical support and NO rational support other than this hunch of YOURS that it will somehow make things better, perhaps you will understand why we will dismiss such behavior as unbiblical, illogical and just mean-spirited and graceless as hell.
Don't bother commenting again on this unless it begins, "My rational reason for supporting this is..." followed by something more substantial than, "cause I think it will help" or, "my biblical reason for supporting this..." followed by some, you know, biblical reason.
Otherwise, I think you've said all you've had to say on this post.
Dave asked earlier...
What is the answer?
I didn't mean to blow off your question with my quick response. Here's a more detailed response:
We have a problem with families in our world. Families not having enough quality time together, families who have been abandoned or nearly abandoned by one of the parents (too often, the father). Familial violence. Homeless families. Kids becoming parents while they are still kids. These are serious problems with no simple answer.
The answers to try to deal with these problems are, of course, varied and multiple. There is no ONE answer, but there answers that might help.
ONE answer is for people, communities and groups, churches included, to model healthy, wholesome families to begin with. I believe studies show that the more solid and healthy the family experience was for children growing up, the more likely those children will also resemble that healthy family.
We can give family classes, counseling and support in being family. We can practice being a better extended family.
For instance. And all these things can (and sometimes do) happen within church.
But, in order to do that, people would have to BE at church, feel welcome and at home at church.
Refusing to bless children in the church setting would only drive people away.
So, once again, I fail to see how this approach even BEGINS to do anything but make things worse.
How about you, Brother Dave? What do you think some of the answers are? What approaches are happening at your church?
"But you guys are dancing around the question. Pre-marital pregnancies and single-parent homes (with multiple children) is a real problem here, well beyond the national trend. We have sex education in the schools, condoms are not hard to find. But still, we have this problem.
What is the answer?"
I don't know the answer. A friend of mine used to work in the nurses office at a high school. She was frustrated by the number of teen pregnancies she witnessed every year and the girls desires to even become pregnant in the first place. She wanted birth control readily available in the schools to see if that would help prevent this.
How do you remove the desire for sex and the desire to get pregant? I don't have an answer.
Would you prefer they have an abortion?
"Refusing to bless children in the church setting would only drive people away."
I totally agree with this and the rest of your comment.
As a church we are to be about reconciliation. You can hardly be about that when you're standing in harsh judgement against those who need reconcilation the most.
I used to work with a pastor who was a lot like this one. There was a couple who started attending the church. They had been together for 10 years, never married, and had 3 children. They wanted to get their lives right with God and get married. Before the pastor would marry them, they had to be counseled for a time (I forget how long), and he also requested that they stop living together and stop having sex.
They never came back.
Dan, I don't have the answer(s). I have been troubled by this problem since the national news picked up the story recently that one of our high schools has 90 pregnant students. (The superintendent disputes the number but refuses to say what the real number is.)
After 20+ years in the ministry, I have not had to face this issue with a church member (yet), but I have talked to others who come into my office looking for assistance. It seems the thinking of some today is that more babies means a larger government check each month.
Another one I heard about revolved around a high school football player. Everyone seemed to think he was going to be a superstar, so at least 5 different teenage girls had his babies, hoping to capitalize on his riches when he made it to the big time! (He didn't.)
But all this simply feeds into the cycle of poverty in which Memphis is trapped. Young (mostly black) people see no opportunities, aren't interested in bettering their situation, have no hope for their future.
In all things, I tend to err on the side of grace. You know the cliches: "Mistakes happen", and "There but for the grace of God go I". But I wonder sometimes if it is "Cheap Grace" and I/we should be doing more, like the pastor you referenced in your original post.
But while your contributors are quick to condemn this pastor who is ministering "down in the trenches" and trying to make a difference, they have failed to offer a better solution to the problem.
Surely with all the brain power out there, someone can offer a reasonable suggestion???
Marty makes many good points, but the most important point she makes is that sexual desire is part of being human. Sad to say, we have reached a point as a society where people reach the point where sexual desire blossoms even as those who are beginning to experience it are ill-equipped to handle it. Art's answer - tell 'em not to, and call 'em bad names if they do - is as puerile and adolescent as the targets of his frustration.
Marty is also right that even with the general availability of conception control, the problem still exists. While we do have sexual education, it is woefully inadequate, because people who think like Art thinks insist the information will just lead kids to thinking about sex, then having sex, then, well, you know the rest.
The churches aren't off the hook here, because we have abdicated our responsibility to teach people that sex, rather than some horrid dirty thing, is in fact a beautiful gift from a good God. That kind of intimate connection between two persons is too precious to waste on the first person to come along. We need to be teaching about the preciousness of human sexuality, and link it to a doctrine of grace, creation, and humanity that sees it as part of God's loving-kindness to human beings.
Sad to say, our churches aren't doing that. Instead, they are punishing the children born to parents who make foolish, short-sighted decisions in ignorance not just of the basic facts of biology, but of the possibilities inherent in a life lived out of thankfulness to God for making us sexual beings in the first place.
As for Art's swipe about my Biblical comments, I will only say this. King David was not punished because he raped Bathsheba. He was punished by God for murdering Bathsheba's husband, Uriah, a man of integrity and loyalty. It's in the Bible, I suggest you read it. The child born to Bathsheba became David's heir, the king to build the Temple. It's in the Bible, look it up.
I agree there are passages in St. Paul's letter that insist we in the church are to abstain from sexual license, and I heartily agree with them. What I disagree with you concerning, Art, is the view that sex, in and of itself, is a bad thing. It is a beautiful thing. As a part of creation, even fallen creation, it is, nevertheless, as God said at the end of creation, very good.
What you think you read as an insouciance toward immorality on my part is, rather, a refusal to call something created by God bad. I refuse to punish fourteen and fifteen year old kids, and the fruits of their bad choices. Since the ratio of bad choices to good choices in adolescence is roughly 13,000 to one-half on any given afternoon, even with the best parenting, it seems to me a measure of grace even in such circumstances is called for.
Thanks for the thoughts, Bro Dave. Not to be immodest, I think I HAVE offered some good - if imperfect and only preliminary -thoughts/solutions.
1. We want to ENCOURAGE people to come to church regardless of circumstances
2. We want to WELCOME them into church with a wildly grace-full acceptance
3. We DON'T want to send messages that even sound like we're saying "You're not welcome here, go away with your 'illegitimate' baby!"
4. We want to support families, embrace them, be there for one another, be a true community/family for one another, providing healthy role models
5. We want to provide/encourage familial counseling, not judgmentalistic, snippy, Church Lady-like responses
These are all good starting points, seems to me.
As opposed to the church's approach in Memphis, which seems to me to be the OPPOSITE of what we want to do.
Earlier I asked Marshall if he had any - ANY - biblical support for his position.
Geoffrey has offered a good biblical counter-point to Marshall's position (the story of that "illegitimate" child born to David). The closest-to-applicable story I can think of from the NT is the story of the woman "caught in adultery."
There is no child in that case, only the woman (and un-charged man) accused of adultery. The religious zealots wanted to stone the woman - "hey, if we don't come down hard on her, then everyone will think adultery is okay, and it's NOT!"
Jesus' response? SAVING her from the would-be stoners, embracing her in grace and saying in love, "go, and sin no more."
Wow! What a role model THAT is for us.
I'm thinking our approach ought to be much closer to Jesus' than the Pharisees.
I don't want it to sound like my church is perfect -- I'm pretty sure many of my teenagers have had sexual experiences already. But I do talk to them about sexuality. If one of them did become pregnant, you can be sure we would rally around them to make sure both mother and child had the support they needed.
Unfortunately, we, the church, don't have access to the larger community. And it's hard (nearly impossible) for a church group to get into the public schools today with a message that might be viewed by some as proselytizing.
Geoffrey, the first child born of the David and Bathsheba died. See II Samuel 12. Solomon was their second child.
D'oh! Of course, you're right, Bro. Dave. Good call.
That little error notwithstanding, I think Geoffrey makes a good argument...
because we have abdicated our responsibility to teach people that sex, rather than some horrid dirty thing, is in fact a beautiful gift from a good God. That kind of intimate connection between two persons is too precious to waste on the first person to come along...
It seems to me that modern churches have made something of an almost cultic fetish ("an object of irrational reverence or obsessive devotion") of sexuality and sexual "sins," and it has not been helpful, it seems to me.
Can you imagine if we treated any other sin/behavior the way we treat sexuality?
"Oh no! My 17 year old has been caught drinking underage! He won't be able to be 'blessed' in church by the pastor this week! Oh, the shame! The shame!"
"Dear God! My 15 year old has been covetous of her sister's gameboy! I'll just die of embarassment! Will God ever be able to look upon our family in love again?? What will the church say??!"
And on I could go. We just don't treat other behaviors the same way as we do sexuality. Even the ones that are more negative (greed, slander, gossip - we even laugh about being gossips, sometimes! At least with sexuality, it's not as if the deed itself is dirty or wrong, just that there are good and bad contxts for it...) - even these more negative ones don't generally get castigated in church the way anything of a sexual nature does.
I think that would be part of the answer: Modeling healthy behaviors not just towards sexuality, but towards our attitudes and behaviors in general...
Dan, perhaps I did miss some of your comments; this thread is getting long. But while your five points are great, I think you're preaching to the choir!
How do we, the Church, impact the rest of the community in an effective way? How can we convince children to study hard and stay in school? How can we convince them it's better to hold off on sex?
If nothing else, Pastor White has at least got us talking about the problem.
Bro Dave...
we, the church, don't have access to the larger community. And it's hard (nearly impossible) for a church group to get into the public schools today with a message that might be viewed by some as proselytizing.
I think we DO have access to the larger community, IF we don't isolate and marginalize ourselves off to the edge of irrelevance.
Many of the parents at our church have parents in some of the same schools. The kids and parents and teachers in these schools know us, I think. They often "get" that we're there for our children (and others', as well), that we love, that we care, that we work hard for good causes AND that we are church-goers. THAT gives us access to the community at large (just as I'm sure is true of your church family, Bro Dave).
The Amish, when they move in to build up a new home for someone in need, they are gaining access to the community at large.
Anytime we "give a cup of cold water" to those in need - when we work for equal rights for all families, when we work against harmful policies, when we support or establish programs to help addicts, to work with the poor, to build homes, to assist teen mothers, all of this gives us access to the community at large. They notice that and it helps our messages get heard.
The community ALSO notices when we make a point to refuse to bless a child in church and THAT message gets heard, too. I just think it's the wrong message.
My church partners with several non-profits in the area that help people, through education and computer training, healthcare, etc., lift themselves out of poverty. We are located in the inner city of Houston in an area where poverty is prevalent. Many church members volunteer within these programs and the outreach to youth is quite significant. Building relationships is vital to building trust within a community and education is a key factor.
These youth build houses through Habitat for Humanity. They give of their time to help others, especially the elderly, in the neighborhood by mowing lawns, doing repairs and recently ran together in a Marathon. There are lots of ways to get involved in the community especially if you can partner with a non-profit in your area. Bro. Dave if you want more info on how you can do this go to my profile and e-mail me. I can put you in contact with my pastor. Perhaps he could be of some help.
Bro. Dave, thank you for the correction. You are, indeed, correct that the first child born to Bathsheba and David died. The larger point, that David was not punished for his rape of Bathsheba, stands.
I do want to know why you think it necessary for the churches to get in to public schools. We barely talk about this stuff in church! What are we going to do about it in public schools. We, as Christian congregations, denominations, small groups within churches, etc., etc., need to get our act together first before we start whining about being kept out of public schools.
First and foremost, we need to remember we aren't going to change the world, or even our communities. The best we can hope for is to touch the lives of one or a few kids; beyond that, we should leave it in the hands of God.
Geoffrey says: "First and foremost, we need to remember we aren't going to change the world, or even our communities. The best we can hope for is to touch the lives of one or a few kids; beyond that, we should leave it in the hands of God."
That's interesting, because my denomination (The United Methodist Church) has said that my mission and that of my church is "to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world". Are you saying they've set the bar too high?
I said we have to get into the schools because the kids aren't coming to us. And with all due respect to Dan, simply setting a good example has not been working.
I'm the spouse of a United Methodist clergywoman, and I am slightly familiar with our mission statement.
I am also thinking that we do what we can, which is touch those around us, and pray and hope and believe that those will reach out to others in an ever-expanding circle that might, indeed, one day reach the entire planet. That is our hope.
But it is above my pay-grade to ever be hubristic enough to believe that one congregation, one denomination, can change the world. We do what we can, let God do the rest - and my experience has been that is actually quite a bit.
Bro. Dave, I, too, am United Methodist. My pastor believes with his whole heart that the mission of the church is "to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world". That statement is being lived out everyday at my church. I'll be glad to put you in touch with my pastor if you're interested.
"Tell you what, Marshall, find some biblical support for choosing to NOT bless a child in a church and I'll grant that you might have a point."
Tell you what, Dan. Perhaps you could find some Biblical support for "responsible" fornication. I'm still waiting for your or Geoffrey to provide same for the idea that sex is a "wonderful gift from God".
Geoffrey insists that he won't disparage what God has created since He said all He created is "good". He ignores the fact that He said that before the fall of man after which the earth was cursed. If he wants to take that angle, then Geoffrey must accept that puss is good. And boils. And viruses and harmful bacteria. And earthquakes and tornadoes. If sex is simply "good" because it is part of God's creation, then there is nothing bad because all things are part of His creation. This would include theft, lies, murder, etc. If sex was "good", then God could not logically prohibit any form of it, as He did in Leviticus, since that would be contradictory.
Dan. It is becoming quite clear that your fall back position when faced with logic is to accuse your opponent of "hunches". You follow that up with a demand for Biblical support, dismissing all that isn't stated in a manner that is beyond dispute, while yourself playing fast and loose with "thou shalt not..." and other direct commands.
Marty,
This couple of which you speak is a good illustration of a problem all to common. You state they hoped to get "right with God" after having three kids out of wedlock. The pastor agreed to help, but when he insisted that they separate and not engage in carnal relations until after they've gone through all the training and a proper marriage, they split. Apparently they didn't want to get right with God after all, not on His terms anyway. The pastor's suggestion was totally Biblical as it insisted upon repentance and "sinning no more" between then and the marriage.
The problem isn't the church, though the church, especially the type you people attend, isn't totally blameless. The problem is the people who profess to be Christian failing to adhere to doctrine and worse, being to worldly to even teach it for fear of losing congregants. Better the church disappear than for it to go on by adapting to human nature.
Or, Marshall, to repeat what you've said in a more concise way:
I have NOT ONE SINGLE biblical reason to support NOT blessing children.
I have NOT ONE SINGLE logical reasons supported with facts to support my wild-assed hunch that NOT blessing children in church will help reduce teen pregnancy.
Thank you for commenting. Insofar as you have NOT ONE SINGLE biblical, logical supported reason for your position, though, you'll have to understand why I shall ignore your hunches.
Marshall, I DO have to comment on this:
If he wants to take that angle, then Geoffrey must accept that puss is good. And boils. And viruses and harmful bacteria.
Are you SERIOUSLY comparing human sexuality to disease, viruses and bacteria?
If so, that is one unhealthy view of sexuality you have. Read Song of Solomon, brother.
And with all due respect to Dan, simply setting a good example has not been working.
I beg to differ. To the degree that "we" have been setting a good example, it HAS been working. Our kids at our church, for example, have a good, healthy view of wholesome sexuality, from what I can see.
One might make the case that it has not been working perfectly in such a way as to end all irresponsible teen sexuality, but to the degree that we do model healthy relationships, support them, support good education and counseling, it DOES work very well, if not perfectly.
Where it DOESN'T work is where...
1. There is hypocrisy about human sexuality and morality (people can often see that a mile off and schluff off any moralizing such people do)
2. Those supporting healthy sexuality are so uptight about it that they do stuff like refuse to bless children in church and DRIVE PEOPLE AWAY from conversations and models of healthy sexuality ("if THAT'S 'healthy' sexuality, I don't want nothin' to do with it...")
for starters.
That is why, it seems to me, that this church's position is exactly the OPPOSITE approach to take if one is interested in increasing healthy sexual behaviors, in addition to be wrong-headed.
"And it's hard (nearly impossible) for a church group to get into the public schools today with a message that might be viewed by some as proselytizing."
I have to say, I always find the conservative inconsistency about our public schools amusing.
Many (most) so-called conservatives want to completely do away with public schools, unless they're arguing about prayer in schools. Many (most) conservatives spend a remarkable amount of time denigrating the qualifications of school teachers and the importance of the subject matter they teach, unless those same so-called conservatives want the schools to teach their particular agenda (ie. Christianity.)
So which is it? Are these schools which are too incompetent to teach anything correctly, which are staffed with teachers who don't deserve pay concomitant to the importance of their jobs really supposed to also be responsible for teaching the faith and morality which parents and churches are either unwilling or able to teach themselves?
Perhaps if parents didn't want the responsibility of teaching their children right from wrong, they shouldn't have had their kids in the first place. And if congregations don't want the responsibility for training up their children in the way they should go, then they shouldn't agree to that responsibility during baptism.
There's a great book out there called "The Imperfect Panacea" which is a history of the myriad ways that America has tried to solve its social ills through the public schools since their founding, and all the ways those efforts have generally resulted in (at best) imperfect or unintended consequences.
(BTW, at the HS in which I taught, it was neither hard nor impossible for Christian groups to be involved in schools. This is a fiction promulgated on both sides by people who don't actually know the law.)
A *real* conservative such as myself would respond to Bro Dave with: I'm sorry your church and the parents therein aren't doing their jobs. But I shouldn't have to pay taxes to the public schools so that your kids waste everyone else's time and money with things they ought to be learning in church and at home. I already pay enough taxes which go to subsidize the tax credits parents get simply for making the lifestyle choice to have children, and I pay taxes which allow your church to remain tax exempt. Not to mention the taxes I pay to make sure that students are actually learning what's on the curriculum at the public school. Just how many times do you want *me* to pay for *your* kids?
And anyway, I thought you all think that public schools suck anyway.
Marshall: "The pastor agreed to help, but when he insisted that they separate and not engage in carnal relations until after they've gone through all the training and a proper marriage, they split. Apparently they didn't want to get right with God after all, not on His terms anyway."
I remember now that the time frame for the separation and counseling was six months. Come on Marshall. This couple had been together in a stable and happy relationship for 10 years. They had 3 really great kids. They didn't need any "training". They just wanted to be married as soon as it could be arranged. They had been attending the church for several months.
This wasn't God's terms. It was the pastor's.
Excellent point, Marty. This couple was ALREADY married in a real sense and HAD children, they just didn't have the church's blessing.
Telling them to live separately... what would the children do??
Rather hilariously passive-aggressive of the pastor, I'd say:
Pastor: Repent! Yer livin' in sin!
Couple: OK. We'd like to stop living together and get married now.
Pastor: No way! Yer sinners!
*sigh*
"They had 3 really great kids. They didn't need any "training"."
heh. Um...apparently not. :)
A whole lot of chocolaty goodness. So, Art, your doctrine of creation is . . . what? God didn't create bacteria or viruses or the human immunoresponse that creates pus, which is little more than the collection of dead white blood cells within a confined area?
For some odd reason you seem to believe that the salvation of the world begun in the resurrection hasn't restored God' original blessing to all creation; which kind of runs counter to two thousand years of musings on the doctrine by the Chuch's best thinkers.
As for sex as a gift from God, as Dan said, and I have said in the past, read the Song of Songs, dude. Furthermore, do you think sex comes from the devil or something? You entire view of human sexuality is so weird, I really can't wrap my mind around it.
I have not, and never will, say the Church supports fornication. Unless you missed it, I specifically stated in an earlier comment that the Bible, in particular the New Testament, supports a view of human sexual relations subsumed under a the whole idea of a disciplined Christian ethic. I completely support this. For some reason, this escapes your feeble brain time and time again. Because . . . you just enjoy thinking that, since I'm an evil liberal I want people randomly shagging just to piss off people like you?
Again, for the life of me I can't understand it.
Alan, you pretty much nailed it in re the whole "oh, if only the public schools, which we hate and don't educate our kids anyway, would let kids pray/talk about Jesus/allow our Christian group in" business.
As I said in reference to the same comment, since the churches have problems dealing with these issues within their own walls, why should we trust them to get their stuff together in a public school setting? It's incoherent.
"Rather hilariously passive-aggressive of the pastor, I'd say:
Pastor: Repent! Yer livin' in sin!
Couple: OK. We'd like to stop living together and get married now.
Pastor: No way! Yer sinners!"
Exactly.
I don't know what happened to this couple. Whether they went to another church or whether they ever got married. But the reverend is no longer in the pastorate. He now lives on a chicken farm in Mississippi.
Art, I refer you here because it offers some thoughts on what the Bible says about marriage.
"Or, Marshall, to repeat what you've said in a more concise way:"
How gracious. How 'bout this:
Dan, to repeat what you've said by your ungracious remarks to me, you have not ONE Biblical reason to support "responsible" fornication. You have not ONE Biblical reason or verse to support the idea of sex being a "wonderful gift from God".
You theologians think the Song of Solomon, brother, supports sex as "a wonderful gift from God"? How exactly? If anything, it puts it far behind LOVE, in which the Shulamite was totally interested. Indeed, had the two kids who conceived the child the pastor wouldn't bless in the church understood the Song of Solomon and what it truly means for human sexuality, they never would have engaged in fornication in the first place.
Sex as a "wonderful gift from God"? What teenage kid wouldn't want to partake of that? You people have NO understanding of the Biblical stance on human sexuality. You are too corrupted for that.
And I ask again, where is the grace in assuming such a poor message in the pastor's actions? I thought of the attempt to point out the sinfulness of the the kids' fornication. YOU chose to assume he was attacking the child.
Bro.Dave said it best. "Cheap grace". THAT'S about the size of it.
Marty's sad couple were NOT married in any real sense or they would not have felt the need to "get right with God" by seeking out a church to marry them. Like many who wish to marry in a church, they had nothing but a superficial perspective and this was confirmed by their unwillingness to prove their intention by what would really have been a self-imposed separation, much like anyone who decides to fast. And what would the children do? They would learn something about God and how to relate to Him. They would have likely stayed at home with their mother while their father stayed elsewhere, perhaps with friends or family, showing his daughters how a Christian man acts and accepts responsibility for his actions. The kids would not only have survived this "ordeal", they would have grown in Christ by it.
You people are pathetic.
I ask again, where is the grace in assuming such a poor message in the pastor's actions? I thought of the attempt to point out the sinfulness of the the kids' fornication. YOU chose to assume he was attacking the child.
You have failed to understand my position. It is not that I do not think he was attacking the child.
You can tell that by the way I never said that.
Instead, I said this sends the message that the child is illegitimate, something shameful. This is not attacking the pastor or the church.
It is saying that this action is a mistake, is wrong. It is saying that this is exactly the WRONG way to reduce teen pregnancy. THAT is what I've said, NOT that he was attacking the child.
Last time, Marshall: Do you have anything to say about what I actually am saying?
That you think shaming families and refusing to bless the child in church is a good thing? Okay, you've said it.
We disagree with your hunches. Take your whimsy elsewhere unless you have something substantial to say, you know, something with some reasons beyond 'cause I say so.
Look, Marshall, maybe you're just not seeing our position.
You come on here and say you have this hunch that we can help reduce teen pregnancy and build up marriage if we'd just refuse to bless children in a church building.
Can you understand what an astounding claim that is?
Being faced with such a claim, I've asked if you have ANY proof, ANY support for making that claim, or if it's just a wild hunch of yours based on nothing more than it's a wild hunch of yours. I asked if you had ANY biblical reason to support the claim.
You don't.
I asked if you had ANY logical, rational support for this claim.
You don't.
What are people supposed to do with a claim that has no support and which sounds, on the face of it, rather silly and hard to believe?
"Instead, I said this sends the message that the child is illegitimate, something shameful."
Yeah. Whatever. Same difference. The point is that you take a decidedly negative view of an attempt at something positive. What kind of person infers such a negative message is my question? I inferred a message about how blessing, in the church, the child of an illegitimate union gives tacit approval of the fornication. Blessing the child nonetheless, the location notwithstanding should have prevented YOUR inference if indeed grace was important to you.
"That you think shaming families and refusing to bless the child in church is a good thing?"
I haven't said this at all, but I will agree with it in this way: Paul talks of the incestuous man and tells the church at Corinth it should have expelled the man, at least until he repents. Do you think that wouldn't shame the dude? But the point isn't to shame, but to correct, though for the kids to feel shame would indeed be a step in the right direction. It would show they understand the gravity of the situation and that their behavior was indeed sinful. Your cheap grace would lessen that effect and I'd argue would give rise to the possibility that they would not get the message at all.
You can cut the crap, now, about "whimsy" and "hunches". You have far less grounds for your beliefs than I do for mine. Try to man up and just deal with my objections instead of the cowardly "whimsy" nonsense. Your insistence about direct Biblical quotations to support my position would not survive your "whimsy" test anyway, since you don't read the Bible with objectivity and reason in the first place. At best, you simply would refuse to interpret my offerings as they should have been interpreted by you in the first place.
"You come on here and say you have this hunch that we can help reduce teen pregnancy and build up marriage if we'd just refuse to bless children in a church building."
No. I didn't. I said that this guy is trying to make a point about fornication and whether or not it is the best tactic, he's at least making an effort that's needed in this day and age. Frankly, considering the incestuous man of 1 Cor, it's a fairly Biblical means of doing that even if it isn't the best means.
"I asked if you had ANY logical, rational support for this claim.
You don't."
This is bullshit. What's more, you have offered no Biblical, logical or rational argument against anything I've said on the subject. More whimsy comes from you and your cohorts than from me. You talk about grace (and Bro.Dave is correct when he speaks of cheap grace) when what's really needed in the church is for leaders to stop pussy-footing around and be more direct: "If you F**K outside of marriage, you are sinning!" This reflects Biblical teaching despite its coarseness and leaves no other alternative opinion. You worry about peoples' feelings. I worry about their everlasting souls.
Marshall, you are the one making the claim. If you can't support it WITH ANYTHING AT ALL, then don't get in a snit if other people find your position to be, on the face of it, whimsical and ugly.
Don't start cursing here because YOU are being whimsical and are being called on it.
IF you are the one making the claim, then it is incumbent upon you to support the claim. You have not done so.
Marshall...
I said that this guy is trying to make a point about fornication and whether or not it is the best tactic, he's at least making an effort that's needed in this day and age.
And I have made it clear that I don't think it is a wise or useful tactic. I've given my reasons for making that claim. In case you missed my (and other) reasons:
1. It is ALWAYS appropriate to "bless."
2. It is INAPPROPRIATE to withhold blessings in a church building (even if you are giving it in a church service elsewhere) as a punishment or incentive.
3. It is inappropriate to withhold blessings because blessings are about grace, not about rewards and penalties. Using blessings as a means of penalties and rewards diminishes grace to some kind of carrot and stick, giving us the very real "cheap grace" of which you spoke, incorrectly.
4. The world recognizes the tawdriness, the cheapness, the lack of grace in this kind of behavior and rejects it as Not of Grace. The hypocrisy is evident to all.
5. This kind of action turns people away from at least these types of churches. I know this to be true because our church is peopled by folk who have been burned by this sort of behavior in church. I've heard the testimonies (like Marty's) of how churches lacking in the very grace by which they are saved has turned people away.
For these reasons (ie, I have some reasoning, some support for my position), I reject this action as wrongheaded and a bad idea.
You come along and defend it, suggesting it will somehow be a good thing...
cont'd...
Your one and only defense of this action, Marshall, that I can see is...
t would help by taking part in the communal support of virtue.
So, you have a hunch that refusing to bless a child in a church building will somehow support communal virtue. Okay, that's a fine hunch. We ALL are in support of community virtue.
But at this point, it remains unsupported by ANYTHING, it is just a hunch.
Do you have any studies? Any research? Any Biblical support? ANYTHING WHATSOEVER that would suggest that refusing to bless a child in a church building will somehow support the notion of community virtue?
THAT is what I am saying. You have this hunch, but you have offered nothing to support it. BASED ON WHAT do you think that your hunch will work?
HOW does refusing to bless a child in a church building (when you will bless the child somewhere else...?) contribute to community virtue?
Lacking any biblical reason or logical reason, and seeing no sense in the position at all, you will just have to understand, Marshall, that because WE ARE concerned about virtue, that we oppose this behavior.
It gets in the way of our very real efforts to promote community virtue.
Your closest attempt to providing any kind of biblical support for this has just arrived in this sentence...
Paul talks of the incestuous man and tells the church at Corinth it should have expelled the man, at least until he repents. Do you think that wouldn't shame the dude? But the point isn't to shame, but to correct, though for the kids to feel shame would indeed be a step in the right direction.
So, by refusing to bless a child in a building, this will correct and/or shame the parents into repenting?
Do you have any reason to think this is true?
I have reason to think it isn't true. I've seen and heard from many people who have left the church because of this kind of behavior. It isn't a correction of a young couple's extramarital affair to refuse to bless their child in the building. There is no good connection, no good reasoning to support this action.
Now, if you want to start refusing to accept a greedy man's money in the offering, refusing to accept donations from a slum lord, refusing to accept money from someone who gets rich off exploiting the poor, then you might be able to make the connection - we're not accepting THIS act of worship from THIS man because of his sin.
But refusing to bless anyone doesn't make sense. Refusing to bless a third party (a child, no less) because of someone ELSE's perceived sin, makes no sense whatsoever.
But something tells me most conservative churches are not willing to refuse money, regardless of the sinfulness of the source (unless it's gambling money, I've seen churches refuse that).
It strikes everyone, even those not in church, as petty and vindictive to take it out on a child. That' s the problem here and the hypocrisy of repeatedly choosing mostly sexual sins to "make examples of people," strikes many if not most of us to sound much more like the Pharisees wanting to stone the adulterous woman than it does like Jesus saying, "let the children come unto me."
It just doesn't ring true.
There is just so much to respond to and so little time. Marshall, you said...
The point is that you take a decidedly negative view of an attempt at something positive. What kind of person infers such a negative message is my question? I inferred a message about how blessing, in the church, the child of an illegitimate union gives tacit approval of the fornication.
And I wonder if you entirely miss the irony?
AS to your inference, I wonder: What kind of person infers such a negative message in a blessing??
BTW, since rape is a sin, I wonder if this pastor will also refuse to bless children born as a result of rape.
Same reasoning and just as ugly and anti-Christ.
I'm still confounded as to Art's repeated claim that you, Dan, and I have ever, not just here but anywhere in all the things we've ever written, claimed any kind of Biblical support for fornication. Particularly since, in a comment earlier on this post, I explicitly stated I support the Biblical stance regarding sexuality as a part of a disciplined Christian ethic (it's the Wesleyan in me that drags that word "disciplined" out), I cannot for the life of me figure out how he comes to the conclusion that I believe, or have stated, there is some kind of Biblical support for fornication.
If I even hinted at such a thing, I would be lying. I would be showing that I cannot read the Bible, or understand what it teaches. I would be unfaithful to my own beliefs. I would be a hypocrite since I'm teaching my children that fornication is wrong. I would be, quite simply, a false teacher. I challenge Art to show me anywhere, any particular words of mine, that prove that I claim the Bible supports fornication.
I know it will be a long wait, because none such exist.
Marshall...
I said that this guy is trying to make a point about fornication and whether or not it is the best tactic, he's at least making an effort that's needed in this day and age.
"Whether or not it is the best tactic???" And what if it's a WRONG tactic, is it all okay as long as his heart is in the right place?
What if his behavior is driving people from church? What if withholding blessings from a BABY is wrong? What if he has NO REASONABLE support for doing so and is making a HUGE mistake in this whimsical, unsupported action?
"At least he's trying?" Really?
Then where is that grace for others who are trying, when you disagree with them? No, they're "false teachers," "heretics," and boogetymen, IF they disagree with you, is that what you're saying?
And is the sole criteria for "it's all okay" ONLY if they agree with Marshall's whims and hunches?
Do you see where the problem lies in this sort of thinking, Marshall? It's not based on anything but feelings and emotions and hunches, nothing solid. It's lacking depth of thought and, especially, depth of grace.
In the linked post in an earlier comment, I wrote some initial thoughts prompted by a passage in the Gospel of St. Mark regarding marriage. I invited Art to read and comment, and for my troubles, I got a series of irrelevancies and a personal attack. The sad fact is, Art is set in his ways, cannot interact with the ideas of others, and refuses to consider views different from his own as having any merit whatsoever. That we criticize his views, not reflexively but based on what he actually says, also escapes his notice.
I have waited four long years for a thoughtful conservative response to pretty much anything I've written. I know they're out there, somewhere.
They ARE out there, Geoffrey. Some of them are beloved members of my family. Some post here (John, Doug and Chance, for instance).
But, as Alan has noticed, there are also many of the loudest and staunchest (ie, harshest) supporters of "family values" are not amongst them (thoughtful conservatives).
Along these lines, would anyone find it surprising that another "family values" Representative has resigned in disgrace?
Obviously there are plenty of thoughtful conservatives out there. My friends and I are scattered across the political spectrum and we can disagree, even argue, and do so respectfully and have fun while doing it.
But the unrestrained impulses that make a loudmouth blowhard the most annoying customer in a bar are the same impulses that make the biggest idiots the most frequent trolls on the internet. If, like them, you were a nobody no one listened to in real life, you might eventually realize the only people you can yell at are people who don't know you. Because the people who do know you, avoid you.
Both drunks and trolls pick venues where they are essentially anonymous precisely so they don't have to treat people as human beings. Drunks and trolls share some things in common: one is the utter lack of taking responsibility for what one says.
Also, drunks and trolls are usually the only ones who don't realize that every one else thinks they're douchbags.
That's "douchebag". Spell it right. Also, since I do indeed have friends in the real world who are both conservative and thoughtful, I do know they exist. I just wonder why it is they are such a rare breed here.
D'oh! Good catch.
Why doesn't Blogger let you edit comments? :)
Marshall: "Marty's sad couple were NOT married in any real sense or they would not have felt the need to "get right with God" by seeking out a church to marry them."
They weren't married in the eyes of the law or the church. But they had been faithfully committed to one another for 10 years. They had been attending the church for several months. I'm not sure that would qualify as "seeking out a church to marry them". Both had grown up in church.
"Like many who wish to marry in a church, they had nothing but a superficial perspective and this was confirmed by their unwillingness to prove their intention by what would really have been a self-imposed separation,"
The separation wasn't self-imposed. It was being forced on them if they wished to be married.
"much like anyone who decides to fast"
No one fasts for 6 months Marshall. It was an unreasonable demand. It was punishment. Pure and simple. And the pastor was imposing the punishment not God.
"And what would the children do? They would learn something about God and how to relate to Him."
Is that what you think? Really? I think the kids learned that God punishes even after someone has repented and His gift of forgiveness and grace has conditions attached.
Dan: "But something tells me most conservative churches are not willing to refuse money, regardless of the sinfulness of the source (unless it's gambling money, I've seen churches refuse that)."
I know of a church who had a gambler. She made many trips to Las Vegas and must have been successful at winning. She was an accountant. The church never refused her money. And she gave a lot of it. I know....because, as a bookkeeper and member, I took care of their finances and contributions. She paid off debts, bought a church van, paid for costly repairs etc. When they needed a Treasurer she volunteered. She certainly had the qualifications, but the pastor said "NO" because of her gambling.
"Is that what you think? Really? I think the kids learned that God punishes even after someone has repented and His gift of forgiveness and grace has conditions attached."
I would like to add that they learned that grace and forgiveness weren't gifts at all. But they were something that they had to earn and pay for.
I am very low on time, so I will only be addressing Dan's 8:20 & 8:25 comments.
I'll ignore the 8:09 comment because it's just plainly stupid and repeats the whimsical charge of whimsy.
Regarding your reasons why the tactic is "unwise":
1. No one argued this.
2. Sez you. Did not God withhold blessings throughout the OT? I believe He did, and with extreme prejudice for those who ignored His will. What's more, as I tried to point out, Paul suggested as much when he lamented the Dan-like attitude of the church in Corinth regarding the incestuous man. This pastor is merely making a point. Far less than Paul or God Himself has done.
3. Same as above. You've repeated yourself. Padding your list shows little grace on your part.
4. So now you've polled the almost 7 billion people in the world, have you? You MIGHT be more honest to say that progressive liberal psuedo-Christians think this is hypocrisy. But they don't count.
5. The only people that are turned away by this kind of thing are those who think of themselves first. Your church is populated with such folks. Those who really care about what God thinks would take the time to question the reasoning behind this pastor's actions and the one Marty mocks from her church. There are plenty of Scriptural admonitions against sexual immorality that people like you and your cohorts prefer to ignore.
continuing...
"So, you have a hunch that refusing to bless a child in a church building will somehow support communal virtue."
No. I said, the communal support of virtue, not communal virtue. I don't know what the latter could be, but the former means that the entire society shares the same notions regarding right vs wrong, and in this case regarding sexual morality.
"But at this point, it remains unsupported by ANYTHING, it is just a hunch."
It remains supported by the mores of the not-too-distant past. One needn't go further than pre-1950's to understand that there was a far different attitude that prevailed. There were far more virgins per capita in the average middle school than there are today. Rare was the high school girl who walked the halls eight months pregnant. Rare was the high school girl that even GOT pregnant. Yeah, I know. It happened. And Marty will again talk about all the tramps with whom she was acquainted. But compare it to today and one can easily see that the communal support of virtue has decidedly waned. To pretend otherwise is to lie like it's free.
"It gets in the way of our very real efforts to promote community virtue."
"Oh, yes, you've beaten that man senseless in order to take his money. But we'll bless you anyway. Want to share in Communion with us? BTW, you really shouldn't hit people."
Yeah, that will cement virtue and good character solidly.
"HOW does refusing to bless a child in a church building (when you will bless the child somewhere else...?) contribute to community virtue?"
Unlike yourself, who can't make a point without straying from the whole story, I do not separate the blessing of the child with the sins of its parents. If you wish to continue, you must keep the two together. So your question, if one intends to be honest, would be better phrased, "How does refusing the fornicating couple's request to bless in the church the child conceived by their sinful behavior contribute to the communal support of virtue?"
The answer is, by itself, it would likely do very little. About as little as anything you've come up with as an alternative. But as part of a comprehensive movement by the community to reclaim a societal appreciation of virtue (in a tangible sense, not merely talk), it would go a long way. It's the same as "it takes a village" in the way the phrase was intended to mean. When all parties, such as parents, neighbors, teachers, TV personalities, etc. favor modesty, for example, the kids will follow suit. When expectations of purity are placed, the kids will meet those expectations. This is time tested and proven.
I have more, but not the time to present it. What's clear is that you people are blind. I'll explain why later. Tons of overtime reduce blogging time.
Marshall, save your typing. At this point, you've gone WAY past not saying anything. You keep typing and typing but saying nothing and more nothing, and doing so in a rude way.
UNLESS you can begin your next sentence, "The REASON I think it's a good idea to withhold a blessing from a child is..." and have ACTUAL REASONS, you are continuing to say nothing.
Nothing more than, "The reason I think this is a good idea is that I think it's a good idea and we can know it's a good idea because I think it's a good idea, so you see, it really is a good idea. Cuz I think so..."
Blah, blah, blah. We get it. YOU THINK - with not a shred of evidence - that it's a good idea.
We think you don't know what you're talking about.
UNLESS you provide something to support your wild and whimsical and egocentric hunches, I'm tired of reading what you have to say.
Yes, we KNOW people in the past may well have shunned and shamed babies and their families and they may have refused to bless a child back then (MAYBE, I don't know that, but it sounds reasonable), but that is not support for the notion that such shaming actually helped promote "communal support of virtue."
REASONS, man, not wild guesses.
No reasons? No reading.
If we want to play wild guess support for positions...
In the 50s, people would have been more likely to treat the child who was raped and HER child as something to be ashamed of. There was more of a sense of community virtue back then, therefore, treating the rape victim and her child as something to be ashamed of is a good thing. Not blessing that baby (in the dignified confines of the church building) would be a good thing.
In the 50s, divorce was treated as a shameful thing. Therefore refusing to bless in church the child from shamefully divorced couples would be a good thing.
In the 50s, uppity women were something to be ashamed of. If we went around and blessed children of women who worked outside the home, that would encourage more uppity women and decrease community support of virtue. Therefore, refusing to bless her children would be a good thing.
In the 1950s, miscegenation was considered shameful. Therefore, refusing blessing children from "mixed races" would be a good thing.
See how easy it is to make "facts" and "support" up if you don't rely on something solid?
Marshall...
I do not separate the blessing of the child with the sins of its parents.
And HERE's the main point that you are missing: THE CHILD IS NOT THE PARENTS. Blaming/punishing someone for the sins of someone else is NOT rational, biblical or wise.
In my church, we have blessings for children. For us, what that consists of is having the child and parents (and sometimes, extended family) come up to the front of the room where the pastor (and/or others) say out loud what a wonderful blessing this child is to us, how beloved by God and us this child is, and committing together to love, pray for, assist, look out for, etc, this child and his/her family.
I suspect that other churches who "bless" children are probably doing something similar.
Now, even back when I was more traditional, I could not see how doing ANY of this in a church building would somehow condone or promote immorality. There is NO LINK whatsoever that I can see to think that. No one here has provided any inkling of a link to doing this blessing and somehow promoting immorality.
Marshall appealed to past practices as "support" for the notion of refusing in-church blessings to children. Back when sexual acting out was something shameful and hidden and, he claimed, sexual immorality was less prevalent.
Here are some OTHER ideas that were tried in the past to reduce sexual immorality:
Making adulterers wear a scarlet A to shame them
Putting adulterers in stockades
Stoning to death adulterers
Feeding adulterers to dogs
Placing adulterers' names in the newspaper so everyone can see that they are adulterers
Criminalizing adultery and placing adulterers in prison and/or fining them (everything from life imprisonment to a $10 fine, from what I've seen)
Barring adulterers from serving on jury duty
Branding adulterers (literally, with a brand, like with cattle - at a hunch, this was probably usually reserved for the women, who were considered like chattel to their husbands)
Whipping adulterers
AND, now we can add to this list...
Refusing to bless a child from a non-married couple in church.
Now, I CAN see how ALL of these ideas listed above (branding, whipping, death) might greatly reduce the at least more flagrant incidences of extramarital sexuality, but would ANY of these be considered a moral GOOD?
I say, No! Good God, No!
No, we do not need to get people to "behave" sexually at the threat of punishment or shame. We need to provide healthy models of sexuality for the world, healthy teachings of human relationships.
ALL of these past practices are NOT healthy, nor moral, ways of promoting healthy relationships. And, short of SOME EVIDENCE to defend them, I can't see changing my mind.
Back in the 50s girls who became pregnant out of wedlock were hidden away in unwed mother's homes. Many died from the hands of the abortion butcher. That's probably why you didn't see very many, if any, walking around high school halls at eight months. A friend of mine is an "Emery Baby" adopted when his mother went to the home in Mississippi. From 1931-1963 over two thousand women lived there. Some more than once. That's just one home. It would be interesting to see if there were more of these homes back then than there are now.
Marty,
By your numbers, 62 girls lived there each year between '31 and '63. Wow! That's a ton! OK. You said "over" 2000. So like, what? 3000? That's still not one hundred. Since Roe v Wade, how many abortions per month have taken place, to say nothing of per year. If you don't see that as proof that things are worse, you're willfully as blind as Dan and the boys. And BTW, stories of back alley abortion deaths are way overblown. Try to find stats.
Dan,
Now you resort to outright lying:
"Nothing more than, "The reason I think this is a good idea is that I think it's a good idea and we can know it's a good idea because I think it's a good idea, so you see, it really is a good idea. Cuz I think so...""
This in no way represents anything I've said, and in fact is an example of your typically graceless dishonesty. Are you honestly going to ignore my statement regarding our recent history, where one couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting a virgin? Nowadays you couldn't do that without hitting a teen who's had sex. Have you not heard of FWB's?
"Yes, we KNOW people in the past may well have shunned and shamed babies and their families and they may have refused to bless a child back then..."
Who the hell said anything like this besides your own sorry self? My statement was that there was a stronger sense of moral virtue in the past that was felt across the entire spectrum of society. You do realize, of course, that most black families were intact in the old days, with few unmarried mothers? Even boys who tried to get laid would never bring those chicks home to meet Mother. They'd find "a nice girl", or one who appeared to be virtuous. Now, appearances aren't even a concern. Why? Because there is little communal support for such virtue. Remember the Petrie's? They were never shown sleeping in the same bed. Why? Because there was a communal support for virtue. Do you need a freakin' affidavit for this stuff in order to satisfy you, or do you think you can reason honestly?
"Marshall appealed to past practices as "support" for the notion of refusing in-church blessings to children."
No. I did not. You are blinded by your psuedo-sanctimony and false piety, not to mention your intolerance and graceless demeanor toward conservative Christians. What I said was that the pastor's methods as part of a comprehensive communal support for virtue would help by highlighting the sinfulness of the behavior that led to the child's conception.
Frankly, I don't believe you care one whit about the child. Your concern is definitely way overblown. The child will be entirely unaffected by this affair. Any who are so stupid as to demonize the child are, like you, foolish beyond belief and it is they who needs correcting just as the child's parents. Focus on them.
"Back when sexual acting out was something shameful and hidden and, he claimed, sexual immorality was less prevalent."
"Sexual acting out" IS shameful. Read your Bible like a normal person. Anyone not married (in the conventional sense) who engages in sexual behavior IS acting shamefully.
In addition, I never said sexual immorality was less prevalent in the past. How can we know if it is hidden? My point was that it wasn't blatant like today. I believe it WAS less prevalent insofar as raw numbers of kids who engaged. Can't account for their desires. But the overall attitudes and expectations kept it as low as possible. Those expectations do NOT exist these days to the same extent or we wouldn't have middle school girls dressing trashy, getting STDs and/or pregnant, 50 million abortions, etc, etc.
""Whether or not it is the best tactic???" And what if it's a WRONG tactic, is it all okay as long as his heart is in the right place?"
Based on your foolish understanding of false teachers, I'd say yeah. But first, you'd have to prove it's the wrong tactic. Here's the distinction: "Not the best" does not equal "wrong". You'd have to prove that it would always generate negative results. Good luck with that.
"What if his behavior is driving people from church?"
You'd have to question the people leaving to see if their heads are as far up their backsides as yours in up yours. If it is driving them from church, then how much time did they spend discussing this issue with the pastor? Did they not like his explanation? Why would they leave because they disagree on one little issue of the location of a blessing that will be delivered anyway? What kind of buffoon is so whimsical in their reasons for leaving a church?
"What if withholding blessings from a BABY is wrong?"
He's not, though, is he? No. He's not.
"
"At least he's trying?" Really?
Then where is that grace for others who are trying, when you disagree with them?"
The pastor can easily base his position on Scripture if he wants to, as there are plenty of places dealing with dealing with sinners within the Christian community. But that's not necessary if he's trying to make a point about a clearly understood sin. But my position isn't as concerned with his methods (I've not supported them as the greatest thing since sliced bread) as the message he's trying to convey to young people about sexual immorality. Yeah, perhaps he can come up with something better. But your wacky lamentations are, as I said, WAY overblown and your concern for the child far from compelling.
"In the 50s, people would have been more likely to treat the child who was raped and HER child as something to be ashamed of."
In what country? Here or Saudi Arabia? This is patent nonsense. Their may have been questions of whether a particular girl "had it coming" based on her known or perceived lack of virtue. But not as a rule for every rape case and definitely not toward the child. I don't buy it for an instant. How whimsical.
"In the 50s, divorce was treated as a shameful thing. Therefore refusing to bless in church the child from shamefully divorced couples would be a good thing."
For the first sentence, that's because it IS shameful without a legitimate reason such as infidelity (read your Bible much?). Geoffrey's poor understanding of the first dozen verses of Mark Chapter 10 support this. As to your second sentence, it would follow the same logic of the Memphis pastor. But I'm not looking at it as a "good thing" at all. "Unfortunate thing" would be a better description of my feelings toward his decision.
"In the 50s, uppity women were something to be ashamed of. If we went around and blessed children of women who worked outside the home, that would encourage more uppity women and decrease community support of virtue. Therefore, refusing to bless her children would be a good thing."
Now you're just being an idiot. "Uppity" women? Even in the 50's, merely working did not make women "uppity". Even in the 50's some women had to work to help support the family.
I like how you reach for the goofiest analogies, scraping the barrel of the last possible film of seeming comparison and then accuse ME of "whimsy" and other such things. And then you do this apples and oranges like thing:
"In the 1950s, miscegenation was considered shameful. Therefore, refusing blessing children from "mixed races" would be a good thing."
I look to past regard for virtue and wish we could regain that regard, and you pretend that means we must also include all the bad things from the past. You dare to question my reasoning when you continually employ these woefully dishonest tactics in order to denigrate my positions and demonize me. Your calls for grace are lies in the face of such bile.
"See how easy it is to make "facts" and "support" up if you don't rely on something solid?"
I see how easy it is for you to roll up a pile of crap and pretend it is equal to my comments. Grace my eye.
"And HERE's the main point that you are missing: THE CHILD IS NOT THE PARENTS. Blaming/punishing someone for the sins of someone else is NOT rational, biblical or wise."
And HERE's the main point that YOU are missing: THE CHILD IS NOT BEING PUNISHED, ESPECIALLY IF IT IS BEING BLESSED ANYWAY. Pretending it is is irrational and laughingly unwise.
"Now, even back when I was more traditional, I could not see how doing ANY of this in a church building would somehow condone or promote immorality."
Don't know that too many, if any, would. But the pastor decided to make a statement (despite whether or not it was the best one to make) and in his mind he saw it as giving tacit approval for the behavior that produced the child. If he feels that's the case, he must do something. That's what he came up with. Let's kill him.
"Here are some OTHER ideas that were tried in the past to reduce sexual immorality:"
More idiocy presented as being in some way equal to what I support. Can you be more dishonest? I don't think so. Or are you really that insipid as to think there's some parallel? Not sure which I'd prefer if I were you.
"No, we do not need to get people to "behave" sexually at the threat of punishment or shame."
Oh. You mean like this:
" 9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
"We need to provide healthy models of sexuality for the world, healthy teachings of human relationships."
We need to remind people of the seriousness of ignoring the teachings of God and the consequences they risk in doing so. Acting as if touchy-feely happy talk will change peoples' minds is worthless if there is no concept of downsides to balance it all out. "Oh, their relationship is so healthy. But I'm getting laid by half a dozen hot babes! And we're always talking about grace!"
Marty,
"They weren't married in the eyes of the law or the church. But they had been faithfully committed to one another for 10 years."
They're either married or they're not. If they truly viewed their relationship as akin to a legitimate marriage, then what need is there for a church going couple to get right with God? No. They obviously saw the error of their ways, but didn't think enough of it to separate until they were properly married. Do think the minister is obliged to jump through THEIR hoops and marry them at their command?
"The separation wasn't self-imposed. It was being forced on them if they wished to be married."
It was self-imposed if they agreed to follow the minister's recommendations. The minister didn't point a gun at them, did he? On who's terms did they wish to "get right" with God? Their own, obviously, if they were unwilling to abide the minister's recommendations. They obviously felt all they needed was for him to just up and marry them because they wanted him to do so. "We want to get right with God, dammit, and no minister is going to get in our way with goofy suggestions!"
"No one fasts for 6 months Marshall. It was an unreasonable demand. It was punishment. Pure and simple. And the pastor was imposing the punishment not God."
The fasting analogy did not require that it last as long as the separation, only that it was a freely accepted choice to do so. But it was not unreasonable for the minister to suggest that they go and sin no more until the wedding. They were living as man and wife without the benefit of marriage. (Now, I like to think that if a man and woman commit to each other, then they are as bound under God as any man and woman who go through the ceremony with the bad DJ at the reception. But I don't know if God sees it that way. I know He's keen on us keeping our vows and promises.) Like Jesus would do, he told them to separate and repent of their sinful ways. The length of time between then and the wedding is arbitrary and three months or four would be just as good. But we're talking about "getting right" and some ministers take such things seriously from an eternity perspective. I like that. No cheap grace there.
"Is that what you think? Really? I think the kids learned that God punishes even after someone has repented and His gift of forgiveness and grace has conditions attached."
Perhaps. If Dan's around they will. But the kids aren't supposed to be left to their own devices here. My hope would be that they would be guided as to how they ought to regard such things and why. It's not about God punishing anyone. It's about how much does one really want to "get right" with God. They sought the advice and counsel of the minister and when he laid it on 'em the balked because "it's too hard". What would YOU do for God? Dan will likely try to turn this into what does He say we have to do, but that's a different story. "We want to get right with God, but not if we have to do THAT!"
Geoffrey,
I honestly can't find where I made any mention of you saying there's Biblical support for fornication. If you could cut and paste it or give me the time I said it, I could review it and show how you missed the point.
I'd also like your or Alan to tell me that a "thoughtful" conservative isn't just one who either agrees or doesn't tell you how stupid your stupid opinions are. My point here, because you won't get it without being told, is that you don't regard my comments as thoughtful because you don't like them, you don't think I believe anything you say has merit (a common whine from libs) and likely because I get snarky from time to time. Boo-freakin'-hoo. I'm just not as impressed as you obviously think I ought to be with your incredible mind. Sorry.
Alan,
I don't know why you feel you need to imagine such sad things about me. I like to discuss and debate. So does Dan, I think. He joins in where he feels his words might get play, and so do I. I'm sorry that you can't tolerate (irony alert) opposing opinions from someone not easily swayed from easily supportable beliefs. Maybe those thoughtful conservatives you think you know are simply humoring you until you leave (in the spirit of grace) and don't want to cause a rift in defending their positions against one who corrupted as yourself. God bless 'em.
But, to imagine that I am somehow friendless, possessed of many skeletons in my closet, am on my umpteenth marriage or don't get along with people I guess helps you to feel good. I'm sorry for you that you have to do that for yourself.
The fact is that I have lots of friends and make more all the time. Aside from yourself, I don't know of anyone ever showing a hateful attitude toward me (not since grade school, anyway) and I discuss these kinds of topics often.
I think the problem is that you and Geoffie and Dan only know me from the reading my opposing opinions and my wonderment at the goofy way you guys twist all sorts of theological, political and social ideas. Lots of people disagree with me, but few dislike me for it. And I'm a lot more direct with them than I am with your gentle souls (I care for them and they know it). Sure, some of them are as fragile as you poor boys, but they still consider me a friend.
But you go ahead and believe what you want. Makes little difference to me. And one more thing:
Yap yap yap yap yap! There.
Like your niece who you chastised openly, on FB, and who subsequently unfrinded you? Like the casual dismissal of the potential family rift because she had behaved poorly in your eyes, and therefore was not worthy of your care or attention for being a perfectly normal human being?
I'm amazed the world isn't beating a path to your door, Art.
On the other hand, I have considered inviting you to friend me on FB if for no other reason than you might just get a glimpse of my life beyond blogging. I think you might find it interesting, to say the least. If you are inclined to do so, you could send me the request and I would honor it. We might both learn something, no?
OMG, Bubba is back! LOL
Maybe he never left?
Seriously, never has so much typing been done to so little effect.
BTW, from a comment far up, here is a sentence you wrote, Art, which I have cut and pasted: "God considers the act wrong, so why shouldn't I? More to the point, why don't you who gets all huffy when accused of supporting sexual immorality, which you obviously have just shown to be the case?"(emphasis added)
So there you have it. You accuse me of supporting immorality, although I still fail to see how.
Your turn to actually show where I support immorality by doing the same thing.
Marshall, I don't think you're seeing our problem with your position. In all your many words, I have yet to see any solid reasoning for your position. Perhaps I'm just slow and I'm missing it in your many words. Perhaps if you'd just make it easy for me and say...
NOT blessing children in a church service is a good thing because...
1. The Bible suggests this when it says... [fill in the blank]
2. Rationally, it might be ONE step to increasing public support for virtue by... [fill in the blank with some rational, supported reason]
Or, as Geoffrey is asking, just support your claim that we support immorality.
Say...
You support immorality when you say... [and fill in the blank with an actual quote] because that means... [fill in the blank with some actual rational supported reasoning]
My/our problem is that your hunches all seem so whimsical and self-produced. It SOUNDS like to me that all you're saying is...
It will help increase support for public virtue because that is something we might have done in the past and that might have helped increase support for virtue because that is how it seems to me...
And if that's all you're saying, fine. I'm sure it DOES seem that way to you. But that hunch on your part is not sufficient evidence to make me change my opinion.
So, briefly and to the point, Marshall, can you fill in the blanks?
I wish to say at this point that due to the fact that I now work long hours, my ability to respond to every goofy charge against me, as well as every goofy opinion, is limited. If I seem to "monopolize", as that fool at Levelers charged, it is only because so many comments have been posted since my last visit.
Thank you.
Geoffrey,
"I'm still confounded as to Art's repeated claim that you, Dan, and I have ever, not just here but anywhere in all the things we've ever written, claimed any kind of Biblical support for fornication."
It is to this statement that I defended myself against ever saying. I can't recall anytime that I said you cited or suggested there is "any kind of Biblical support for fornication". Thus, I say again that I have made no claim, much less repeated claims, of the kind. I have only said that you support sexual immorality. I have answered to that at your blog (have not looked back since) despite your attempt to dismiss the charge. Biblically speaking, the charge is legitimate, sound and totally in line with Scriptural teachings.
That we criticize his views, not reflexively but based on what he actually says, also escapes his notice.
Not at all. What escapes YOUR notice is the true point of what I am saying. I concede I might share the blame for that, not keeping in mind your difficulty in that area. As much as I can, I try, and will endeavor to be more painstaking in this regard, to post the time of the comment as well as cutting and pasting the comment over which I find fault. Pretending I don't remember my own words or position fails without such evidence.
"I have waited four long years for a thoughtful conservative response to pretty much anything I've written."
I've given you guys all that and more (such as "snark"), but you dismiss it as thoughtful because you don't like the ramifications of what I say. You don't like the fact that I indeed see little of merit in opinions I find outrageous. Boo-hoo.
"Like your niece who you chastised openly, on FB, and who subsequently unfrinded you? Like the casual dismissal of the potential family rift because she had behaved poorly in your eyes, and therefore was not worthy of your care or attention for being a perfectly normal human being?"
Wow! Can you overstate the case more than this? My open chastisement was so simply state her unnecessary use of profanity, which she took pains to capitalize, showed no class. I stand by that. It's the same for us. I rather consistent on the subject, even to the extent of feeling shame for my own habit of bad language.
"...casual dismissal of the potential family rift..."?
Hardly. That I'm willing to risk in order to correct is not a casual dismissal. Unlike you and Dan, I'm not as worried that some might bolt the church (or family) because they don't like the truth. I'd prefer they stick around and deal with it maturely, but watering down an important message over concerns for, what, they're egos ?, doesn't imply a solid regard for righteousness. I've never seen anything like that in anything Jesus ever said or did. To you guys, it seems as if telling the truth as it is is somehow lacking in grace.
You speak of her being a perfectly normal human being. Is that justification for bad behavior? Should mature Christians give people a pass because they are only being "perfectly normal" by giving in to worldliness? Show me Biblical support for THAT notion.
As for my niece, she now knows without a doubt that there is at least one person in her life with higher expectations for her, who views liberal use of profanity as indicative of low character. Imagine if everyone in her life felt the same way. Communal support for virtue.
"I'm amazed the world isn't beating a path to your door, Art."
I've never suggested it isn't. As I said, I have lots of friends and I get along with almost everyone.
more--
"Seriously, never has so much typing been done to so little effect."
One cannot account for the intelligence of those reading.
"So there you have it. You accuse me of supporting immorality, although I still fail to see how.
Your turn to actually show where I support immorality by doing the same thing."
Asked and answered despite your refusal to accept the truth. Your support of "gay marriage" alone is proof enough.
Regarding your invite on FB, I'll consider it sincerely. I make no promises.
I fail to see how supporting equal rights for all human beings, by insisting that the state legally recognize these unions and grant them all the privileges and responsibilities of heterosexual unions is immoral. I have not and will not argue the position from a Christian standpoint, because the matter is a legal, not a religious, issue.
How this makes me "immoral" I do not and cannot understand. It seems to me that making the nation a more open place, in which the state recognizes without distinction the long-term commitments human beings make with one another, is an unmitigated good for all, apart from any religious objections one can make against them.
That has always been my position on gay marriage, and it remains my position. I fail to see how what you have written, to the contrary, has anything to do with this position. That is why I deny your attempt to use my support of gay marriage as an excuse to label me "immoral".
Dan,
"Marshall, I don't think you're seeing our problem with your position. In all your many words, I have yet to see any solid reasoning for your position. Perhaps I'm just slow and I'm missing it in your many words."
I do think you're on to something. The other possibility is a refusal on your part to face facts. Perhaps a combo.
"Perhaps if you'd just make it easy for me and say...
NOT blessing children in a church service is a good thing because..."
No. That would be, like you, focusing on the wrong thing. You should know by now, Dan, that I don't play by your rules. That requires me to throw out logic and reason and inhibits the truth from entering into the discussion.
You want to focus on the child as if it is harmed in some way. It isn't as he is willing to bless it elsewhere. HIS focus is on making a statement on the sinful behavior of the parents in hopes of moving in some way toward a more virtuous culture in his circle of influence. You want to focus on idiots who will see this as some slight on the child, idiots who apparently are also in need of some education regarding morality. I'll risk such attitudes and deal with them as they arise (such as fallout regarding the situation with my niece) and focus on the truth and the souls of the parents.
What I can say is that you guys support sexual immorality when you lament about irrelevant things such as how people will view the minister's actions, how they will regard the child and other such nonsense. All that is more important to you than to stand for righteousness and say to people like these parents, "No. I will not proceed as if no foul was committed." All those issues that draw your concern are consequences of the actions of these parents. Mature people don't mitigate actions against sinfulness based on the consequences in this manner. Doing so waters down the message regarding the sinful behavior. This in no way is proceeding in a manner that mirrors the words or actions of Jesus, Paul or any other Biblical character. It is NOT the same as dealing with sinners in a loving manner. There is no love where the truth gets second billing to the sensitivities of the sinner.
Regarding past attitudes: I insist that anyone can see that there was a different tone regarding sexuality in the past. That it included idiots who saw sex itself as sinful does not matter. As to that, sex is morally neutral. To say otherwise is akin to saying violence is sinful. It is not. How these things take place, in what context, is what determines sinfulness. Nowhere in the Bible does it say sex is good. It might say something suggesting sex between a man the woman he married is OK, but not that sex itself is good. Thus, those who saw sex as "filthy" or "wicked", even within a proper marriage, were idiots and not representative of what I am supporting.
An example of what I support is confounded by rampant portrayals of fornication on TV and in movies. I'd prefer much less of it, with some message regarding the improper nature of it. THAT will add to the communal support of virtue.
Gotta go.
More words with NOTHING to say. Marshall, I'm going to repeat myself:
Marshall, I don't think you're seeing our problem with your position. In all your many words, I have yet to see any solid reasoning for your position. Perhaps I'm just slow and I'm missing it in your many words. Perhaps if you'd just make it easy for me and say...
NOT blessing children in a church service is a good thing because...
1. The Bible suggests this when it says... [fill in the blank]
2. Rationally, it might be ONE step to increasing public support for virtue by... [fill in the blank with some rational, supported reason]
FILL IN THE BLANKS. Support yourself, make yourself clear, but quit rambling. I've quit reading your non-responses. Support your case or give it up.
If you've quit reading my responses, how do you know if I've provided support or not?
But I say again, I never said that not blessing the child in church is a "good thing". I'm suggesting that the pastor is doing a good thing by trying to draw attention to the sinfulness of fornication. There is no harm being done to the child by not blessing it in the church building. But there is harm being done by "proceeding as if no foul was committed." This is evident in our culture as so many, including leftist "Christians" abdicate responsibility in proper Biblical instruction by saying sinners are "perfectly normal human beings" and other moot and irrelevant things. YOU are saying that the kid is now seen as bearing the shame of their parents because of a defect in YOUR thinking. I've NEVER taken that position regarding illegitimate children. Normal human beings wouldn't because the kid's obviously done nothing wrong. What the hell is YOUR excuse?
So rather than focus on what doesn't matter in this story, why don't you tell ME how you, as pastor of that Memphis congregation, dealt with the situation? What do you do about the sinful behavior of the kids who conceived this unfortunate child? How do you address it, or, as it seems apparent, do you not address it at all? Tell me how YOUR position can be proven to actually reduce such behaviors and attitudes about sex outside of marriage. My clear and definitive positions are based on common sense, an understanding of obvious human behavior as well as an unaffected understanding of clearly presented Biblical standards and practices, all of which is plain to see to anyone honest enough to look.
But you can cram your demands that I express myself on YOUR terms, which only serve to manipulate, distort or stifle thoughts and positions you oppose.
This is a direct quote, Art: "No. I will not proceed as if no foul was committed."
Thing is, that is what God does with us each and every second of existence. Not just us, but all creation. That is known as grace.
The only "principle" involved, to my mind, in any pastoral act, is living out that grace. At what point do we draw a line? For you, Art, it seems sexual sin is akin to the Sin against the Holy Spirit. For others it might be racism, say, or gambling. Yet, all this line-drawing has nothing to do with the central message of the Gospel, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ for the salvation of the world.
At the high-point of the story of God' relationship with creation, God didn't figure that principle was more important than Divine Love for Creation. Seems to me, going and doing likewise might well be part of being a good Christian.
It isn't support for immorality. It is putting grace, the Gospel, front and center, making moral questions become subject to that Divine decision for all creation. For me, at any rate, that is the nub.
"Thing is, that is what God does with us each and every second of existence. Not just us, but all creation. That is known as grace."
Yeah that "no foul committed" pretty much says it all regarding Marshall's theology.
I'm wondering how different denominations teach grace. I've only been in two denominations...Southern Baptist...and now United Methodist. I thought I knew the meaning of grace as a Baptist. But the United Methodists have taught me even more taking it to a much deeper level.
Grace most certainly does not mean not recognizing and naming sin. It only means it does not count against us.
There's that scene in Good Will Hunting, where Robin Williams keeps repeating over and over to Matt Damon, "It's not your fault." No matter how much Damon tries to wriggle out of it, Williams keeps repeating it until, at the end, Damon breaks down.
That's God and us. Not that it isn't our fault. Just that God never gives up on us, never stops trying to pound through our sin-thickened skulls that God's love for us will not ever stop. Ever. No matter how hard we try, no matter how often we rebel, no matter how deep we feel the pain of our sin - God is there, repeating over and over again in our ears, "I love you."
For Wesley, as for Luther and Augustine, embedded within grace is both judgment and forgiveness. Indeed, if either were absent, it wouldn't be grace. It is this view of grace - that God's judgment is God's forgiveness, that Art misses, I think. The two are more than linked; the two are the same thing.
Our human response is, should the Holy Spirit so work within us, both contrition and conversion, the "about face" of faith. This is not, nor should it ever be thought of as, a one-time deal. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer reminds us, it is something we do each and every day. As Wesley taught, this is the road to sanctification, perfection in love, a scouring of our self-love from our lives so that all we do flows from that love that comes from God.
And I'm the one who is immoral. . .
Blah, blah, blah. So according to you, Geoffrey, you believe that God's grace means never having to say "I'll stop sinning". How does that lead to anyone leading a holy life? Ignoring the sin in the name of grace makes people lead sinless lives? Is that what you're saying? Now, don't start in on me as if I'm demanding perfection from imperfect beings. But God tells us to be holy because He is holy. How does that happen when we ignore His prohibitions on sinful behaviors? Does grace give us a pass that relieves us of our obligation to repent of our sinful behaviors?
There is no grace in acting as if sinful behaviors aren't sinful. There is no grace in ignoring the ongoing sinful behaviors that a given individual may make no effort in ceasing. That isn't grace at all. Jesus never ignored the sins of those to whom He said, "Go and sin no more." They may be forgiven, but they were told to sin no more. Grace does NOT mean that one can continue in their sinfulness as if grace gives them permission to do so, or that grace will tolerate willful bad behavior.
Be advised. God will not forget anything we do. Our salvation requires something more from us besides lip service toward accepting Christ. The pastor is only trying to make an issue of what should be made an issue: the sinful behavior of the baby's parents.
Dan keeps ragging on me for support for my position. I wonder if he'll insist on some for your apparent notion that "grace" will lead to our young people resisting the urge to get jiggy with each other. That "grace" will lead to people resisting all other sinful urges, like lying or cheating or harming folks or anything else.
I insist that acting as if no foul has been committed will lead to fouls being committed routinely. Referees hold players accountable to the rules of the game being played. Christians have a duty to hold each other accountable in the game of life because the penalties are served for all eternity.
All this talk of grace is crap if it means no facing the perpetrators of sinful behavior with the intent of impressing upon the perp the seriousness of ignoring God's will. Will the kids stop screwing if the pastor refuses to bless their child in the church? In this culture, with attitudes like yours so prevalent in one variation or another, I'd wager no.
Contrary to what Marty seems to believe, the grace of which you speak is not a deeper understanding. It's a fraud and renders grace meaningless for the ramifications of it. God will not forget, nor is there any Biblical reason to believe that He will not punish those who ignore His will.
Even if this child was the result of a one time weakness on the part of an otherwise Song of Solomon understanding of human sexuality on the part of these kids, the actions of the pastor are appropriate in the sense that as a spiritual leader, he is doing something in hopes of preventing future incidents. That's what a spiritual leader is supposed to do. When keeping God's will in mind, he cannot chase anyone away. Instead, like Marty's example, those unwilling will simply run away rather than put forth a real effort toward being holy because God is holy.
BTW, God's judgment is forgiveness for some. Jesus said that many will say to Him, "Lord, Lord" and He will reply that He doesn't know them. How does that mesh with your idea of grace?
Geoffrey...
No matter how much Damon tries to wriggle out of it, Williams keeps repeating it until, at the end, Damon breaks down.
I'm reminded of the difference between Jesus' reaction to the "woman caught in adultery" and the Pharisees' reaction. They sought to condemn in the strongest terms possible (killing her) for the sake of "preserving community support for moral virtue," while Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more."
One is an action of wrong and prideful judgementalism, harsh and grace-less. The other is coming from a place of deep and compassionate love. And I would contend that the "neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more" loving and grace-full approach would tend to be the most effective in bringing about real change.
Marshall, are you moving the goal posts now? You said...
I never said that not blessing the child in church is a "good thing". I'm suggesting that the pastor is doing a good thing by trying to draw attention to the sinfulness of fornication.
You're NOT defending this church's actions as a good thing? You're only coming out in support of drawing attention to the negatives of teens having babies? The negatives of adultery and promiscuity?
If THAT'S all you are speaking of, no one here really disagrees. NONE of us want to see more teenagers having children. NONE of us want to see rampant promiscuity. We ALL support healthy sexuality in its right context.
BUT, that was not what this post is about. This post is specifically about this church's specific action of refusing to bless a child in the church building.
If you're not defending THAT, then all of your comments are about something else. Do you have any ON-TOPIC comments? Are you NOT defending this church's actions?
I think you are, that is the point of you making these many comments (albeit without a shred of support).
So which is it? Are you coming out in support of healthy sexuality and opposed to promiscuity? If so, we all agree with you I suspect.
OR, are you coming out in support of this action, you know, the behavior this post is actually about?
""No. I will not proceed as if no foul was committed."
Fortunately God does.
Hebrews 8: "For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more."
Once against MA shows his complete ignorance of the Scripture he claims to defend.
This all comes down to grace, and we've already seen many times that Marshall does not believe in unconditional grace.
Oy. Apparently, he missed the point where I mentioned sin several times, acknowledging our sinfulness each and every day, etc., etc., etc. Also, apparently, you missed the part where this isn't "according to Geoffrey", but according to John Wesley and Martin Luther and Augustine of Hippo and rooted in St. Paul of Tarsus.
When one is captured by grace, one lives in the full knowledge of one's sin as well as and simultaneous with the knowledge of God's forgiveness. This is what makes grace, well, gratuitous. It is unmerited. Indeed, as John Wesley taught, it goes before us even before we were aware of it; that is known as prevenient grace.
I do not know how it is possible for you to just dismiss this central doctrine of the Church. This isn't something I invented, or am distorting to fit my own immoral ends. This is the Gospel - that God was in Christ reconciling us to God, as St. Paul says. That while we were yet sinners, Jesus Christ came which proves God's love for us. That God so loved the world that the Son came so that whosoever would believe would not die but have everlasting life.
This is all about grace. It isn't anything we do, or can do. Holiness, holy living, moving on to perfection in this life, however you choose to define it, is impossible on our own. This, too is God's gratuitous work in our lives. It begins with contrition, with the asking forgiveness of our sins each and every day, each and every hour of the day, listening for the voice of God whispering, "You are my child in whom I am well pleased."
Once again, this isn't something I invented to make myself feel better about my life. Indeed, it is precisely because I am aware, each and every day, that, as the Psalmist wrote, my sin is ever before me, that I am that one most in need of God's forgiveness and simultaneously least worthy of it. That it is a reality in my life I confess not because of anything I have done, or even am capable of doing. I confess and profess this reality in my life because of the Spirit of Christ within me, again, as St. Paul said.
How can I refuse to judge a young couple who made the error of having sex outside marriage? Why, because I know that I am guilty of far worse. I recognize in their sin not my own righteousness, but my own far worse sin. I also know, and proclaim and confess and profess that God's grace is greater than our sin; if than my sin, then surely the paltry sin of this young couple. I do not condemn them, nor stand in judgment over them because I confess belief in a God who has already forgiven them, whose grace is present in and around them, even if they aren't aware of it. God's actions aren't dependent upon my belief, or the belief of anyone else, to be efficacious. Grace is grace even if the entire Universe ceased to exist.
That is why I do not judge. Not because I celebrate immorality, or because, as a liberal, I secretly hate God and want our civilization to crumble or any other ridiculous notion. I do not judge because, first, Jesus instructed us not to judge; because of the grace that I acknowledge each and every day, sometimes several times each and every day, I have no standing to judge others, condemning them as somehow in need, first, of punishment.
When you write that God will not forget anything we do, that contradicts Scripture! The Psalmist writes that as far as the east is from the west, that is how far God removes our sin. The Bible explicitly states that, once forgiven, our sins no longer exist, and God will call them to mind no more.
You write the following: "I wonder if he'll insist on some for your apparent notion that "grace" will lead to our young people resisting the urge to get jiggy with each other. That "grace" will lead to people resisting all other sinful urges, like lying or cheating or harming folks or anything else."
Um, have you not read anything I have written so far? Grace is about living a life of thankfulness, no longer lived under the curse of sin, but under the light of life that is the crucified and risen Jesus. Instead of standing around telling others that they're wrong, it begins with the public and private confession each and every day that we are sinners, unworthy to approach God, yet granted that privilege not because of our merit but because of the intercession of the risen Christ.
You write as if grace were cheap, perhaps even free. On the contrary, grace is the most precious, priceless gift. The cost is small, to be sure; it requires only our deaths, our deaths to our selfish desire to make ourselves God, to make ourselves the measure of all things. There are no guarantees when we surrender our lives to grace, which is why it still, after two thousand years, is called "faith", in which we see in part and only know in part, again quoting St. Paul, and not knowledge. You want certainty, drop a pebble and it will definitely fall in a straight line to the ground. Beyond that, at least in this realm, all bets are off. You turn your life over to God, and more than likely things are going to get pretty hinky, but even Jesus said that would probably happen.
See what you did? You got me all preacherly. Go read Calvin. Go read Luther's Lectures on Romans and his treatise on the Bondage of the Will. Read Barth's "Epistle to the Romans", where even at this earliest stage, he still manages to write of God's eternal decision for creation in Jesus Christ that is also God's eternal judgment against creation for its sinfulness.
Read John Wesley's sermons on-line, in particular "The New Birth", "The Almost Christian", and a few others. I think his pamphlet on Christian perfection might be online, too. Read them, and remember - God's judgment is summed up in the risen Christ, nail-holes in his wrists and feet, spear-hole still in his side.
Geoffrey, now you're arguing for a historical understanding of grace. Elsewhere in one of these comment threads, MA completely threw out any historical understanding of Scripture from Wesley, Calvin, etc.
He has clearly shown he doesn't read Scripture by clearly contradicting what it says, as we've shown. He has also stated he couldn't care less about historical orthodox theology.
And he thinks we just make stuff up. LOL.
Once again we see his hypocrisy.
Well, I feel like I said about all I could say about grace, and he still started his response with, "Blah, blah, blah".
Even more than a contradiction, that was kind of a shock.
Doesn't surprise me at all. It has always been obvious that MA's response to God's grace is "blah, blah, blah."
He neither understands nor values grace in any way.
Nice try, boys.
I say again: Grace is not license to sin, and this is how you present it. I'm not talking about true believers who backslide, or who's imperfections manifest from time to time. Grace covers these people. I'm referring to those who show no regard for God's law and will and then pretend grace will cover them. I don't believe you can make a Biblical case for such behavior.
Dan says, "Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more.""
Fine. But notice He said "sin". He did not forget that sin was committed, did He? He specifically spoke of sin. That is, He labeled a behavior as sinful. He didn't condemn the woman, but He certainly didn't proclaim the behavior as no longer sinful. This is the angle I've always addressed sexual immorality, so you guys can now stop accusing me of condemning people to hell. If we are talking about unrepentant sinners, that's a different story altogether. But that's rarely the case in our discussions.
Geoffrey said that Jesus said not to judge. A common misunderstanding. There is nothing against Scripture in judging behaviors. Again, this is the main thrust of most of my arguments.
So I stand with my understanding that God will NOT forget those who ignore His will and sin without care. Grace is not a license to sin at will. Or perhaps you've a verse that counters that fact?
Alan believes he does with his Hebrews 8 offering. The new covenant spoken of also does not give license to living contrary to God's will. Can you make the case that it does?
So you all can dispense with this crap about my ignorance of grace. It seems obvious my understanding is more solid than yours if you think as I've inferred.
Dan,
I was unaware that you were insisting on focusing solely on the minister's blessing the child outside the church. As little of the story as you had presented, you gave enough to suggest far more than merely that. You should have been more clear.
But knowing this now changes nothing. You can't take the blessing aspect of the story out of context like that. You can't separate it from the intention that provoked it. There's a downside to either direction:
1. Bless the baby outside the church and yokels with no sense will look poorly upon the child. Unlikely, except for the stupidest in the community.
2. Bless the baby inside the church and give tacit approval toward the behavior that lead to the baby's conception. This is without question unless the pastor mars the proceedings by bringing up the parents' sinfulness. And how would THAT go over?
You guys like to believe that I would have a preacher bar the whole of the congregation due to the fact that they are all sinners. What you fail or refuse to recognize is that there is in some cases, like this one, an obvious situation proven by the existence of a child born out of wedlock. This isn't necessarily true of everyone in the congregation. Thus, to act as if no foul had been committed is to give tacit approval of the foul.
Ideally, such things should be handled privately at first, if a sinful behavior is obvious. Take the sinner aside and explain the situation. You know the drill, Dan, as you've brought it up yourself. Perhaps that took place and that's what lead to this story. I would have to think so.
This situation is similar to one in my own church, with the exception that the kids DID get married. (The father has since died as a result of combat in Afghanistan)
Here's the problem: No one likes to hear about sin and less about sins they regularly commit. I rarely hear much preaching about God's laws anymore in any sermon I hear. Instead, I hear about grace in a manner that grants permission to change nothing. I'll not again cite all the areas that have been impacted by sexual immorality in this country. But it seems talk of grace does little to lessen it. But how many of those guilty think they are covered by God's grace nonetheless? I can think of at least one person here who believes so.
"It seems obvious my understanding is more solid than yours if you think as I've inferred."
If it's obvious to you, then it must be wrong, and it is.
Not only are you ignorant of grace, you're even ignorant that your objections have been answered again and again since the Reformation. (And before that, of course. Paul's sarcastic reply to your ridiculous objections, "Are We to Continue in Sin That Grace Might Increase?" is a pretty effective smack down. More Scripture which you're also ignorant of, apparently. As Paul would say, you're not yet ready for solid food. But I'm sure Paul is a godless heathen socialist queer librul too, in your view.) All you've done is demonstrate that you're ignorant of standard caricature of grace and the thousands-of-years-old response to it. Ignorance piled on top of ignorance on top of ignorance.
What is obvious is that you believe people earn forgiveness via repentance, which is not simply mistaken, but is actually the very opposite of Grace.
http://www.crownandcovenant.com/product_p/ds146.htm
Maybe that one is simple enough for you.
Just a suggestion: Go troll some Calvinists for a while. Tell them how you believe justification is based on repentance and not grace. I'm sure they'd be happy to set you straight. It would actually be pretty hilarious to watch.
Art: "Grace is not license to sin, and this is how you present it."
Me: "Grace is about living a life of thankfulness, no longer lived under the curse of sin, but under the light of life that is the crucified and risen Jesus."
Again, Me: "You write as if grace were cheap, perhaps even free. On the contrary, grace is the most precious, priceless gift. The cost is small, to be sure; it requires only our deaths, our deaths to our selfish desire to make ourselves God, to make ourselves the measure of all things."
I fail to read, even between these lines, where anyone could possibly find a license to sin.
St. Paul wrote that we are freed for the sake of freedom. Behind this statement is an understanding of the Law and the Gospel as existing in tension, in history, in the lives of communities of faith, and in the life of the believer. At heart, however, salvation by grace through faith - again, not my phrase, some Saxon said it first almost 500 years ago - is about resolving this tension by focusing on the freedom we have been given in Jesus Christ no longer to be anxious about our status before God (both as individuals and communities of faith), because this decision, being God's, has already been rendered in the crucifixion and resurrection, and will be fully realized at the end of all things.
This does not mean Christians do not sin (I think you used the term backslide? Were you at any time Baptist?). It only means we are free of the curse of sin, as well as free of the anxiety that comes from worrying over whether or not God counts it against us. The freedom granted in grace through faith is the only real freedom that matters - the freedom to live our lives fully and completely as God calls us to live them.
The difference between a Calvinist like Alan and a Wesleyan like me is slight; it was Wesley who said that he was a hair's breath away from Calvin. For those who come from a Wesleyan tradition, grace is not only that which goes before us (prevenient), calling us with whispers, turning us ever so slightly; nor is it fully realized at that moment when we are grasped by grace such that, like Wesley, we understand ourselves the object of Christ's sacrifice, recipients of this gift of eternal life (justification). It continues to work through us and in us toward what Wesley called Christian perfection, which is known as sanctification or, another word Wesley used, holiness.
It is not something that just happens. Wesley worked very hard to set up, in the towns where he preached, small communities he called class meetings, where those who came to understand themselves as justified would gather, read the Scriptures, pray for one another, pray and sing hymns together, and support and uphold one another as they followed St. Paul's dictum to "work out your salvation in fear and trembling." While not wholly Arminian (as is often charged), it is nevertheless not fully Calvinist because the Wesleys were quite sure that if the life of faith did not bear fruits - fruit of holy worship, of service, of prayer, of study of both the Scriptures and doctrines of the faith - then that which is called "justification" might well not be real for the person who claims it. Pick up any biography of Wesley, and you'll find that many of these class meetings fell apart and had to be reconstituted upon a return visit because those in them quarreled or fell away from one or another or all that was required of them.
Again, I see nothing here, nothing in anything I've written, that shows grace as license to sin. Please point that out.
Marshall...
I was unaware that you were insisting on focusing solely on the minister's blessing the child outside the church.
I made one point in this post: That my favorite comment was pointing out the hypocrisy of this specific action.
So, are you merely saying that you support (as we all do) responsible sexuality?
OR, are you supporting this action?
And, if so, DO YOU HAVE EVEN ONE REASON (besides 'cuz I think so) TO SUPPORT THAT POSITION?
Yes, THAT action was what I was specifically opposed to. So, now that you know what I'm specifically speaking of (refusing to bless a child in a church setting or refusing to bless a child in ANY setting), do you have a comment about what I'm actually speaking of?
Marshall...
Bless the baby inside the church and give tacit approval toward the behavior that lead to the baby's conception.
THIS is what is whimsical and ugly and unsupported.
HOW does saying, "We will pray for this child, support this child, be family to this child and support and pray for this child's family... HOW does that give "tacit approval" to anything?
Because the baby was conceived through sinful action and that action is not addressed. When does it get addressed? Never, as it seems you graceful people believe. Sin all you want because by grace God will not hold it against you. When do the sinful behaviors of us all get addressed? Alan sins with pride and willingness. This will not change unless grace really moves him to repentance.
Which, by the way, I didn't put forth as he likes to think. But try to demonstrate that repentance isn't required. Must we change into something new or shouldn't we? Is that not repentance? Or do we just go on pretending grace saves us while we do nothing at all different? All three of you give all the grace crap and never answer the question. This is why I believe your notion of grace is faulty. You don't address the issue of sinful behaviors. You all pretend that it is no longer necessary to preach about sin, to teach what it is according to Scripture and why it should be avoided. You just give this cheap grace nonsense and think you're more scholarly. Where I come from, it's called bullshit.
This pastor, in his own imperfect way, is trying to get a message across and you want to kill him for causing no harm to the child. None whatsoever.
I will not rehash again what you guys are too foolish to see, which is the effect NOT calling attention to obviously sinful behavior has on society and our youth.
Marshall...
When does it get addressed? Never, as it seems you graceful people believe. Sin all you want because by grace God will not hold it against you.
Except that NONE of us have said that. I have said quite specifically several ways in which we can aid with good relationship models/classes via church.
So, YET AGAIN, do you have anything to say about what I'M ACTUALLY SAYING? Or would you rather complain and moan about things I have not said because it's easier to beat up that strawman?
WHEN does the behavior get addressed? NOT AT A BLESSING FOR THE CHILD, that's to be sure. Why? BECAUSE IT'S NOT THE CHILD'S FAULT.
So I no longer wonder if you have anything to say to support the practice of REFUSING to bless a child in church because at this point, it is clear you have NOTHING.
Marshall...
This pastor, in his own imperfect way, is trying to get a message across and you want to kill him for causing no harm to the child.
The harm is to the church and no one is "killing" the pastor. We're saying this action is stupid and wrong and, as you have made it quite clear, THERE IS A TIME TO CALL OUT WRONG ACTION. We're doing that right here and yet you are beating us up for doing EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE ASKING US TO DO.
You want us to "call out" sinful, wrongheaded behavior? THAT's exactly what I've done. You should be happy and yet you keep defending something you can't defend, logically, biblically or morally.
I think the responses of some are a good model of the difference between the more fundamentalist-y conservative type approach and a more progressive/rational approach.
The more fundamentalist types want to see behavior condemned, shamed, belittled. They want to see "sin denounced as sin," thinking this is the best way to deal with problems like sexual promiscuity.
I'm guessing that they are, by and large, ignored by the world at large as hypocrites and as not having anything much to say.
The more progressive types truly believe in the healing power of grace. That grace and loving responses go a long way towards leading to repentance and reconciliation.
These are the folk who actually go into service working with the poor, the marginalized, single mothers, children, actually doing something with their every day lives to help the problem.
And, of course, there ARE some conservative types who do this as well, but in my experience, not the more fundamentalist type of conservatives.
"Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more." What a powerful outreach. Much more than the stoning approach.
"You want us to "call out" sinful, wrongheaded behavior? THAT's exactly what I've done. "
Yup. If the pastor has a problem with the parents, he should take it out on them, not on an innocent child. Not a difficult concept, but too complicated for some to understand, it seems.
"Where I come from, it's called bullshit."
And there we have it, from that great intellectual of our times, MA. Augustine, Luther, Wesley, Calvin, the great theologians of the Protestant faith: all bullshit.
MA sets himself against the historic, orthodox theology of the last several centuries which has informed about 99% of the Protestants on the planet. And he's right, and everyone else has been wrong all this time.
He just makes stuff up.
It seems to me that the more fundamentalist types focus more on "the wrath of God" and the need, in their view, for it to be appeased. They are fixated on sin.... mostly other people's sin.... rather than their own. That plank is firmly implanted.
To be clear, because you all fail to see clearly, I called YOUR interpretation of the historic theologians' teachings to be bullshit. Not theirs. I doubt you can support your crap with their words, or worse, you would make their words mean what they don't, as you all so often do with Scripture.
Since the pastor is blessing the child elsewhere, or is willing to do so, there is absolutely no harm done to the child by his actions. None whatsoever. If you can't make the connection between his actions and his intentions, which were clearly spelled out, you have a problem. But no, you don't want to call out the sinfulness of the parents. You don't want that there should be consequences for bad behavior, unless of course the perpetrator is a conservative, a business man or corporation. You're frauds.
Your bullshit about grace and modeling good behavior does nothing to put forth the seriousness of sinful behavior. Modeling good behavior can easily be taken as merely another lifestyle choice as libs and other buffoons are wont to do.
You also presume too much by saying progressives are rational. This is obviously not true as evidenced by all the harm progressive thought has done to our culture. Progressive thought is greatly irrational and largely selfish.
Saying there's harm to the child doesn't make it so. Saying the pastor is taking out the sins of the parents on the child is a stretch considering his willingness to bless the child. If the child is blessed, what difference the location of that blessing. But the point he is making is greater than where the child gets blessed and you fools are too anti-conservative to see it that way. If nothing else, and we concede there is some kind of harm the child suffers as a result of this decision, it is minimal and worth the lesson the pastor is trying to impart.
But you guys don't care about sin. You think one needn't repent of sinful behaviors. I say this because you have yet to say otherwise, and when situations like this arise, you refuse to regard the condemnation of a sinful behavior as necessary. "Oh! Where's the grace in that?" It's in the lesson people learn about God's will in the hopes they, too, will abandon that which He finds deplorable.
"Since the pastor is blessing the child elsewhere, or is willing to do so,"
I just don't see the difference. If it's not okay to bless the child in the church, then it shouldn't be okay to do it outside of the church.
Marshall...
You also presume too much by saying progressives are rational. This is obviously not true as evidenced by all the harm progressive thought has done to our culture. Progressive thought is greatly irrational and largely selfish.
I don't think you understand how funny and ironic this sounds coming from you after this emotionally roller coaster ride of non-reasoning you've offered here, brother. We have asked and asked for support for your position and nothing has been forthcoming but shrill emotional 'cause I say so sorts of "reasoning."
Marshall, just because YOU THINK we support immorality, that we don't care about sin, that blessing a child (in the church building but not outside of the church building???) somehow endorses a sin of their parents, etc, etc, just because you have all these hunches in your gut, does not substitute for rational objective support for such claims.
So, if you would ever like to try to bring some real support and make an actual argument that isn't emotional and whimsical, I'm willing to listen. In the meantime, this is just sadly funny.
You also said...
Your bullshit about grace and modeling good behavior does nothing to put forth the seriousness of sinful behavior.
Our "bullshit" about grace and good behavior? Can you see how you are coming across as emotional and sounding not a bit flighty?
Do you suspect that Jesus was spouting bullshit and not taking seriously sinful behavior when he refused to go along with the traditional religious-y approach to standing against the adulterous woman's action? Do you suspect Jesus was being soft on sin when he said, "then neither do I condemn you..."
THE SON OF GOD said, "neither do I condemn you." Let the power of that grace statement sink in, Marshall. We ARE saved by God's grace. We are BEING SAVED by grace.
No bullshit, there.
Therefore the Kingdom of Heaven is like a certain king, who wanted to reconcile accounts with his servants. When he had begun to reconcile, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents.
But because he couldn’t pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, with his wife, his children, and all that he had, and payment to be made. The servant therefore fell down and kneeled before him, saying, ‘Lord, have patience with me, and I will repay you all!’
The lord of that servant, being moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the debt [that is, he was soft on sin and spewed some bullshit about grace, is that what you think, Marshall?].
"But that servant went out, and found one of his fellow servants, who owed him one hundred denarii, and he grabbed him, and took him by the throat, saying, ‘Pay me what you owe!’ "So his fellow servant fell down at his feet and begged him, saying, ‘Have patience with me, and I will repay you!’
He would not, but went and cast him into prison, until he should pay back that which was due. So when his fellow servants saw what was done, they were exceedingly sorry, and came and told to their lord all that was done.
Then his lord called him in, and said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt, because you begged me. Shouldn’t you also have had mercy on your fellow servant, even as I had mercy on you?’
His lord was angry, and delivered him to the tormentors, until he should pay all that was due to him.
~Jesus "bullshit grace/soft on sin??" Christ
MA: Read the Westminster Confession, read the Canons of Dordt, read the Belgic Confession. Read the Scots Confession.
Heck read Ephesians: 2:8-10: "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."
Once you've completed your reading assignment, then provide direct quotes (DIRECT QUOTES!) which demonstrate how anything I've written contradicts any of that. You're the one making the charge that I have said something (again provide a direct quote) that contradicts these writings, so the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that is the case. It is obvious that the reason you have not done so is that you've never read (and probably never even heard of these writings) nor ever read anything by, or even heard of Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Wesley, etc.
Matt 19:13-15: "People were bringing little children to him in order that he might touch them; and the
disciples spoke sternly to them. But when Jesus saw this, he was indignant and said to them, 'Let the little children come to me; do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs. Truly I tell you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will never enter it.'
And he took them up in his arms, laid his hands on them, and blessed them."
Jesus did not make the parents give an account of all their sins before blessing their children.
All you do is ramble and make stuff up. We've clearly shown how a direct quote from you clearly contradicts clear Scripture. In response you've provided nothing but your usual stupid rambling. You've confused your phony piety with faithfulness, your hardheartedness for clarity, and substituted your opinions for the clear teaching of Scripture.
You're a false teacher, MA.
Oh, and Baptism shouldn't be private either, like this "blessing" outside the church. Baptism, like communion, is an important event for the entire faith community. That too is a traditional, orthodox understanding of the sacrament of baptism that any Protestant should know and understand.
And, again, MA neither knows that nor understands it.
Interestingly enough, in the PCUSA, the pastor doesn't even have the power to make these decisions and any good Session would fire the pastor for doing what this pastor is doing. Only the Session can approve the administration of the sacraments. They must approve each baptism and each communion. Neither sacrament can be private unless there are particular extenuating circumstances (ie. homebound elderly, etc. But even in those cases, both the pastor and an elder from session must be present.
Alan...
Baptism shouldn't be private either, like this "blessing" outside the church. Baptism, like communion, is an important event for the entire faith community.
Excellent point that I have missed, Alan! Marshall keeps saying "the pastor offered to 'bless' the child in the home, so no problem..." and in so doing, he fails to understand what a "blessing" is (at least in our circles).
As I pointed out, in OUR church, when we bless a child, it is something the whole congregation takes part in. We're publicly saying that we - ALL of us - will pray for and support this child.
Having a private blessing would be very much like have a private baptism - it would be missing the point, which is solidly built upon community, not isolation; and joyful support, not hidden shame.
Here, MA, here's a fill in the blank form:
Alan wrote, "[insert direct quote here]"
and that clearly contradicts the Westminster Confession, Article [insert citation here], when it states, "[insert direct quote here.]
None of your rambling church lady BS. Actual quotes.
Just once I'd love to see you put up or shut up. But, given your past childish behavior, I expect you'll do neither, unfortunately.
(And I still don't understand why a Baptist is baptizing babies...)
This minister is clearly very, very confused. No wonder MA agrees with him.
"You think one needn't repent of sinful behaviors."
Provide a direct quote where any of us has said that.
A direct quote.
Your tedious, stupid, unsupported, anti-Christ BS has gone on long enough, and as much fun as I have laughing at you while you behave like a jackass, it's time to put up or shut up, MA.
Direct quotes. Period.
I have gone to great pains, across several long comments, to make clear (a) the teaching concerning grace is not mine; (b) that it takes sin seriously precisely because it, as the character of Divine Love, is rooted in Divine wrath at human sinfulness, and the greater Love that will not allow that wrath to overwhelm God's loving-care for creation; (b) that the Church is most clearly the Body of Christ when it lives out St. Paul's statement, "The saying is true and worthy of acceptance, Christ died for us while we were yet sinners. That proves God's love for us."
As for the child being conceived in sin, last time I checked, all of us are conceived in sin. That is why there is this whole "original sin" thing, Art. Have you never heard of this? Luther's idea that we are "simul iustus et peccator", at one and the same time sinners and yet still justified - it, too, is at the heart of Protestant thought, Evangelical, Reformed, Wesleyan. You carry on as if some person were cleansed of the taint of original sin. We aren't, at least not until the New Creation, when we will stand before God because God has called us beloved children.
The pastor in this case is displaying no understanding that this child, and the child's parents, are worthy of acceptance not because of anything they have done, but because God loves them as they are. Does God want them to repent, to change, to go and sin no more? Of course, and nothing any of us has written would contradict that.
Yet, "go and sin no more" are words all of us hear, each and every second of each and every day. Because, to repeat myself, our sin is ever before us, as the Psalmist says.
Are you hearing this? Are you getting this?
Ever heard of the doctrine of total depravity, MA? It is the very first of the 5 points of 5 Point Calvinism. (Ever heard of that either?) I'd simply put Geoffrey's point in big bold 150 point font. Total depravity, MA. Look it up.
We are, as Calvin said, miserable worms. Nothing we do can ever be good. Everything, every thought, word, or deed which proceeds from our corrupt nature is damnable.
Repentance doesn't change that. Repentance doesn't earn us Grace. It doesn't earn us salvation. It doesn't earn us faith. And repentance isn't necessary to have some other miserable sinner say a few words over our babies.
Nothing we do, think or say earns us anything but hell and damnation. Nothing.
So. Yeah. Take your stupid "you don't care about sin" BS somewhere else.
Ironically, we're the only folks here taking sin seriously. MA has created a cute Saturday morning cartoon version of sin that he can wipe away all by himself. Marshall thinks he can talk his way out of sin, wiggle his way out of it, finagle his way into grace by his own free will.
As I've said repeatedly, MA does not understand even the basic notion of Grace. And here we see that as clear as day once again.
You need to repent of thinking your repentance is earning you anything, MA. You've made idols out of yourself and out of your free will and you blaspheme the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
Your salvation? You didn't have anything to do with it.
You're a false teacher, MA.
Geoffrey: "that it takes sin seriously precisely because it, as the character of Divine Love, is rooted in Divine wrath at human sinfulness, and the greater Love that will not allow that wrath to overwhelm God's loving-care for creation"
This may very well be the key part that Marshall has failed to understand.
What has struck me as I have written and read and re-read my presentation on the doctrine of divine grace is how basic it is. The presentation I've given is so orthodox it makes me cringe a bit, really. Not that there's anything wrong with being orthodox . . .
This understanding of the complex character of Divine Love, given life and form in the passion of Jesus, is something I haven't really revisited in a very, very long time. It is so basic to my own life of faith, it is so interwoven in to my life, to express it explicitly like this has been both good for me, and made me decide, after I finish the little book I'm reading now by German theologian Helmut Thielicke on nihilism, I'm gonna turn to the Reformers. Luther's "Three Treatises", I think, then perhaps wade through Calvin's Institutes again. So, it has been a good thing.
It has most certainly been a good thing for me. Thanks for this post Dan. I really needed to hear all of this.
Geoffrey, I especially appreciate your eloquent explanation of grace from the Wesleyan perspective. It really helped me.
And Alan from the Calvinist perspective..what can I say? Man, those planks have been torn asunder.
Marty said,
"I just don't see the difference. If it's not okay to bless the child in the church, then it shouldn't be okay to do it outside of the church."
Only if you take it out of context. The pastor is trying to make a point about the manner in which the child was conceived. Since he is willing to bless the child elsewhere, the point isn't about blessing the child at all. Try to think objectively and not like the boys here who are looking to crucify conservatives who aren't willing to pretend sin will end if we're nice to the sinners.
Dan,
"I don't think you understand how funny and ironic this sounds coming from you after this emotionally roller coaster ride of non-reasoning you've offered here, brother. We have asked and asked for support for your position and nothing has been forthcoming but shrill emotional 'cause I say so sorts of "reasoning.""
Calling your opinions crap and bullshit does not indicate I'm getting emotional. Weary from correcting your willful misinterpretations of my clearly expressed thoughts, perhaps, but not emotional. You dismiss my responses as not having fulfilled your requests for support because you don't like the ramifications of my words. I get that despite your denials to the contrary. This "because I said so" nonsense is typical of you when you can't defend against my position.
"Marshall, just because YOU THINK...does not substitute for rational objective support for such claims."
All I've been trying to do is to explain what the pastor is trying to do, why he is doing it, and why your ugly attitude towards him is irrational and illogical. What's more, according to your and the boys' notion of grace, you don't show a whole lot to this guy. Indeed, you won't confront this in the same way you confront the fornication of the kids. How typical, hypocritical and lacking in grace.
"Our "bullshit" about grace and good behavior? Can you see how you are coming across as emotional and sounding not a bit flighty?"
Only if you ignore the rest of it, where I said that you haven't and can't show how your BS and modeling reduces the sexual immorality in our culture. Ignoring that part is as flighty as it gets.
"Do you suspect Jesus was being soft on sin when he said, "then neither do I condemn you...""
Again, as is so dishonestly common with you, you leave off the tail end, wherein He tells the woman to go and sin no more. So He wasn't soft on sin if He expected her to turn from her sinful ways, was He? No. He wasn't. But we are assured that if she ignores that part of the sentence as YOU do, He will surely condemn her at Judgment.
But again, as if one who claims to use reason should understand by now, I'm not talking about condemning the kids. I'm talking about not acting as if there was no sin committed. I'm talking about condemning the sin in which they took part.
It should be considered that perhaps this was one of a routine line of unmarried couples in his circle of influence coming to him to bless their illegitimate children. He sees the immorality and wants to do something to address it. No. You take the ungracious track and condemn him for his actions. You offer him no grace that you pretend is so important to you.
"THE SON OF GOD said, "neither do I condemn you." Let the power of that grace statement sink in, Marshall. We ARE saved by God's grace. We are BEING SAVED by grace."
Pick and choose what you want to read, Dan. I read the whole sentence and know that I must repent of my wickedness in order to be saved. I cannot continue fornicating, murdering, stealing, coveting...I must become something new.
So since you guys are the experts on grace (*gack*), perhaps you can tell me if unrepentant sinners are saved as well.
Your 3:55 post is irrelevant. I am not condemning anyone here. You only want to believe I am to make your arguments work. Frankly, I don't see that the pastor is condemning anyone, either. How can a point be made without addressing that which the point is about? He can't without being accused by some wackjobs as lacking grace.
Alan,
I don't take reading assignments from people who consider me a yapping dog.
"Heck read Ephesians: 2:8-10: "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."
Here's been my question to you theologians: Does the above verse mean I don't have to stop, say, pimping? Can I continue running my ponzi scheme or juice loan operation? Can I keep selling narcotics to school kids?
Never have I said that works saves, but I do acknowledge that faith without works is dead. When you can find where in all that reading assignment a place where it allows for continued sinning, get back to me with the page number and THEN I'll read it.
BTW, Calvin, Matt 19:13-15 is not contradicted here. The pastor is willing to bless the child and never indicated the kid ain't welcome into the church community. One simple change of location for the blessing does not mean the kid is rejected and prevented from coming to Christ. Maybe you can overstate the case a little more.
"You're a false teacher, MA."
Maybe if your understanding of my position is true, which it isn't.
"Oh, and Baptism shouldn't be private either..."
There's nothing in the story to indicate the outside blessing would be a private affair. Not so nice try.
Dan,
"Excellent point that I have missed, Alan! Marshall keeps saying "the pastor offered to 'bless' the child in the home, so no problem..." and in so doing, he fails to understand what a "blessing" is (at least in our circles)."
I believe I've been emphasizing that the pastor would bless the child "elsewhere". The home qualifies, but that doesn't mean it has to be a private affair lacking participation of the faith community. The home or property on which it stands might very well accommodate more than the congregation can send. Again, not so nice try. One thing that is certain, however, there is much about "your circles" that I'm sure I'll NEVER understand. I don't know why you're now bringing up "private", except to further demonize me and the pastor. I'm going with that.
Are unrepentant sinner saved, Art? That's a question as old as the Christian faith. Since salvation is God's work in the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the answer has to be "yes". Being a Christian is not about me. It isn't about Alan. It isn't about Dan. It isn't about Marty. It isn't about you. By grace through faith we are saved, and this is only the beginning of the journey of the Christian.
Were grace efficacious only because of our acceptance of it, it wouldn't be grace. Were grace efficacious only because of our acceptance of it, why have grace at all? As St. Paul is at pains in his epistle to the Romans to make clear, even before the Law, which gave to the people of Israel an understanding of sin that was clear, Abraham's decision to answer the call of the LORD was reckoned to him as righteousness. Not because he had done anything. He had answered God's call to move to the promised land in faith, before that term and even the God behind it was fully revealed; this is, as St. Paul goes to great lengths to explain, God going before Abraham, planting the see of faith within Abraham before knowledge of sin and the Law was given to the people.
How do you deal with the end of the eighth chapter of Romans, Art? The entire chapter builds and builds, as St. Paul makes clear that we can be discouraged, beaten down, even feel defeated - by the powers of this world, by the sin that still breathes within us no matter how righteous we feel. He declares, as he reaches his climax, that nothing - not worldly powers that seek to silence the Gospel; not sin and evil that seek to undermine our faith and the beloved community; not even death itself - separates us from the love we have from God in Jesus Christ.
Nothing.
Nada.
Zilch.
This is the culmination of an argument about the way God has lived with, first the people of Israel. The Law was given, and even though it gives us only knowledge of sin, yet as such it is still a gracious act on the part of God; the Reformers (again) understood this, yet they reversed the (theological) sequence for a more (historical) one - they saw, first, Gospel, then Law. In the early and mid parts of the last century, that was reversed precisely because Paul is clear enough that the Law itself is good news, Gospel.
I should note, by the way, that even St. Paul went so far as to say that those who live their entire lives without the Law (let alone the Gospel) nevertheless are judged and claimed by this same rule; it was for this reason that he could see in the lives of those far from the Jews and the gathered people of Jesus Christ evidence of God's grace at work.
Again, you've asked a question the Bible addresses.
"The pastor is trying to make a point about the manner in which the child was conceived"
I know the point he was trying to make. But what about the pastor Marshall? Is he so without sin that he can cast this stone? What of his life?
When the woman was caught in adultery Jesus told her to go and sin no more. The crowd didn't tell her that. Only Jesus has that authority. Perhaps this pastor should have followed the crowd's lead and remained silent and let Jesus do His work in this baby's parents. He would have you know. He didn't need any help whatsoever from the pastor.
He was trying to do God's work for Him.
Alan said "And repentance isn't necessary to have some other miserable sinner say a few words over our babies."
He's right.
The pastor I talked about earlier who refused to marry a couple until they lived separately and were under his counsel for six months had a few skeletons in his closet. He was estranged from his oldest daughter who he had with his first wife still living. So he was, quite frankly, according to Scripture, living in adultery and his three children by his current wife were all little bastards. He was placing burdens on this couple that he himself refused to bear.
It's hypocritical either way.
We will never come to an agreement on this because I don't believe the Grace of God is given with conditions attached. And you do.
Art, you continue to ask questions - do pimps have to stop pimping, etc., etc., - that reveal you aren't actually reading anything we've written.
Alan,
You are not worth what little time I have to rehash what I've said several times and then to page through anything to find where how you've misinterpreted or misapplied anything written therein. And that is so incredibly likely considering how your lifestyle reflects a clear misunderstanding of Scripture. You promised you were going to ignore me. When you gonna start?
"(And I still don't understand why a Baptist is baptizing babies...)
This minister is clearly very, very confused. No wonder MA agrees with him."
Read the damned story. It says "bless", not "baptize". I don't make any assumptions about what difference there might be in that particular congregation. Some churches have a day for blessing pets. Some bless buildings. Many simply bless congregants for a host of reasons. The story gives no detail regarding their particular traditions.
"Ironically, we're the only folks here taking sin seriously. MA has created a cute Saturday morning cartoon version of sin that he can wipe away all by himself. Marshall thinks he can talk his way out of sin, wiggle his way out of it, finagle his way into grace by his own free will."
Nothing I've said comes within a solar system of what I've said. You're breaking one of Dan's cardinal rules of blog discussion by not seeking clarification. Instead, you go out of your way to imply that which is unsupportable by my words in order to try to demonize me. This helps to support what I'm saying about your lame view of grace. Because of grace, you can say any lame shit you want, no matter how untrue, and somehow still be right with God. Cool. I'll keep that in mind.
""You think one needn't repent of sinful behaviors."
Provide a direct quote where any of us has said that.
A direct quote."
So after over a hundred comments, one you guys is finally addressing that concern? Of course you still haven't said we must. You only insist I provide a quote of you saying we don't have to. Is it really so hard? All of your comments imply that by not saying otherwise directly. That's why I persisted. See how much time you could save if you weren't so ungraciously trying to make me out to be something I'm not?
And as to insisting and demanding I do anything, Alan? You'll have to kiss my ass first.
Geoffrey,
I'll have to get to your misunderstandings later, but I intend to.
"Implied"? We have implied nothing of the sort. On the contrary - I said directly that repentance is a fruit of grace.
The sticking point is "required". God "requires" nothing of us but that, in faith through grace, we love God and our neighbors. Even that is something we are incapable of doing on our own. As Alan said, it's worms all the way down. Even now, our love is tainted by sin. Our repentance tainted by the selfish desire to rescue ourselves from the wrath to come.
Approaching 200 hundred comments, and you keep insisting we are saying things that are the exact opposite of anything we have said. You insist we have implied things that cannot possibly be inferred from anything we've written.
The problem is ours?
"Since he is willing to bless the child elsewhere, the point isn't about blessing the child at all.
If that's the case then why even bless the child? That's too thin to splatter Marshall.
Marshall said: "Alan,You are not worth"
That's the problem with you Marshall. People have to believe a certain way and live a certain way for you to think they have any worth. Everything is conditional with you. A blogger we all know likes to accuse those he disagrees with as making God in their own image. You might want to think on that a while Marshall.
Alan may hate me for posting this link, but Art, check out this song by Casting Crowns. It's schmaltzy, but it is a song deeply rooted in both the Bible and an understanding of grace that is all pervasive. I hate to admit it, but it makes me tear up; I sang it at PGUMC once and was a spectacle, singing with tears running down my face. I felt like Jimmy Swaggart.
MA,
You missed it, I guess so I'll say it again:
Here's a fill in the blank form:
Alan wrote, "[insert direct quote here]"
and that clearly contradicts the Westminster Confession, Article [insert citation here], when it states, "[insert direct quote here.]
None of your rambling church lady BS. Actual quotes.
Just once I'd love to see you put up or shut up. But, given your past childish behavior, I expect you'll do neither, unfortunately.
"And as to insisting and demanding I do anything, Alan? You'll have to kiss my ass first."
1) No. You'd like that too much, you disgusting pervert.
2) Strike 1, MA. Now you're running away, coward.
"You are not worth what little time I have to rehash what I've said several times and then to page through anything to find where how you've misinterpreted or misapplied anything written therein."
Bwaaak! Bwaaaak! Bwaaaak!
MA's chicken. You had the time to type that Bubba-esque little rant. You have time to cut and paste.
Come on MA Put up or shut up.
"Geoffrey,
I'll have to get to your misunderstandings later, but I intend to."
Gee. We can hardly wait.
"Our repentance tainted by the selfish desire to rescue ourselves from the wrath to come."
Wow! So so true.
Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”
“We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’? If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came — and Scripture cannot be set aside — what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?
Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”
Relax, friends, and rest in grace.
Marty, Alan, Geoffrey, I thank you all SO much for your many wonderful and astute comments and observations. How wonderful is that grace by which we are saved.
However, unless Marshall has a specific question for one of you that you wish to answer, I'd ask that, for this post, you let it be with regards to Marshall's comments.
I appreciate it.
Marshall, some final points from me on this post...
I don't know why you're now bringing up "private", except to further demonize me and the pastor.
1. I'm not demonizing anyone. I simply have not done that.
2. What I HAVE done is criticize this one specific practice.
3. I have provided reasons WHY I criticize it (it comes across as un-gracious, as hypocritical, as blaming a baby for something someone else has done)
4. I have pointed out that there is NO reason that I have seen to support NOT blessing a child in a church building.
5. You have countered with, "but this church is trying to condemn wrong sexuality."
a. I have asked HOW refusing to bless a child condemns the parents' choices.
b. I have asked if you have ANY reasons to think that this approach would work.
c. I have asked if you have any reason from the Bible to support not blessing a child in a church service because of something the parents did.
6. So far as I can see, you have not answered any of these three questions with anything other than your hunches.
7. If you would like to try once again to answer those three questions/points with something more substantive than hunches, you may.
8. Otherwise, this post is ended for you. Thanks for your comments. I think, though, that they are lacking in grace and common sense and logic. I remain unconvinced that this is in any way a good or rational practice.
9. I hope that we can all embrace that grace by which we are saved on a more consistent basis.
Peace.
Working long days. Often 10-12 hours. Cutting and pasting requires perusing many posted comments over many threads across many blogs to do what? Satisfy Alan's petulant demands? Don't think so. It doesn't take me long to type what I want to say in response to anything here. Believe me, if I feel it worth it for the sake of the discussion, I'll search for what I need to make my point. Call me a coward if you want, Alan, lad. I'm not moved by such tactics. I'm dealing with four people here and I'm reduced to responding to what I haven't missed, for there is a ton by the time I get back. Deal with it. In the meantime, I'll point out every future corruption of God's word as you manifest it.
Geoffrey,
"Are unrepentant sinner saved, Art? That's a question as old as the Christian faith. Since salvation is God's work in the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the answer has to be "yes". Being a Christian is not about me. It isn't about Alan. It isn't about Dan. It isn't about Marty. It isn't about you. By grace through faith we are saved, and this is only the beginning of the journey of the Christian."
Why the need to repent? Jesus speaks of repentance. Am I to ignore that? Perhaps we have a different idea of the term and how it's applied. All of us are sinners, that is true. There's a difference between being in a state of sin because we're born into it and thus are sinners, and someone who actively engages in sinful behavior, after being told it's sinful, and doesn't give a flying rat's ass and continues to engage in it. To me, this is called rebellion against God. This rebel might actually believe in God and want to go to spend eternity with Him. But as to his favorite sinful behavior, he has no intention of giving it up or even trying. He may say "I don't believe it's a sin because people didn't know about that kind of stuff when they wrote the Bible" or any numbers of other lame excuses to continue carrying on the sin. Apparently, you believe they are still saved by grace. They never have to die and be born again, leaving their old selves behind. It seems by your implications, that the difference between saved and unsaved is...well, I can't really tell. One simply is or isn't and their behavior doesn't give it away. Alan's come really close to being straightforward on this question, but has yet to pull the trigger. I know where I stand. That dude is NOT saved. He's willfully ignoring God's teaching on the behavior of his choice knowing the teaching goes against him. How can he be saved and be in rebellion at the same time?
Marshall said...
There's a difference between being in a state of sin because we're born into it and thus are sinners, and someone who actively engages in sinful behavior, after being told it's sinful, and doesn't give a flying rat's ass and continues to engage in it.
Okay, so I've told you that this church's behavior is wrong. You've been told it's sinful. You don't appear to give a flying rat's ass and continue to support it.
Does that mean you are doomed, or are you saved by Grace?
"difference between saved and unsaved is...well, I can't really tell. One simply is or isn't "
That's why it is called "Unconditional Election".
Duh.
Alan, that's going to be a difficult concept for someone who believes that your salvation is dependent on things you do or don't do.
"Okay, so I've told you that this church's behavior is wrong. You've been told it's sinful. You don't appear to give a flying rat's ass and continue to support it."
IF you feel that way, fine. I disagree. What's clear is that you haven't shown the dude the grace you expect him to show the kids who produced the child. However, regarding your childish game, I don't believe you can make a case that suggest his actions are Biblically forbidden in the same clear and strong terms as fornication, can you? Your arguments are subjective, in fact, as I've answered every concern regarding his actions and the mythical harm to the child as well.
"That's why it is called "Unconditional Election"."
So the unconditionally elected can do whatever the hell they want, whether God proclaimed it sinful or not, any time they want, as often as they want and never stop until THEY decide to? Is that what you're saying?
"Alan, that's going to be a difficult concept for someone who believes that your salvation is dependent on things you do or don't do."
So we don't have to accept Christ to be saved? I can accept the golden calf and still I'll be saved? I can say Christ isn't God and be saved? There's no tie to my actions or beliefs at all? (This, BTW, is something I've been discussing with Stan, for my edification. I don't suspect you all will be able to better school me on the subject.)
Umm...I think, according to Calvinists, that come under Irresistible Grace. But Alan can correct me if I'm wrong.
"So we don't have to accept Christ to be saved? "
As the Westminster confession states: "Christ is both the author and finisher of our faith." So yes, of course the Christian accepts Christ, but not because he/she made a decision to do so. That "decision", that faith, is a gift of God, not an action of a pathetic, sinful, mere sinful human being like you or me.
You think you just made a choice to accept Christ and therefore, you're saved? Voila! Hah. You didn't accept Christ. Who are YOU to accept Christ?? Does the peasant "accept" the king? Does the slave "accept" the master? You're a miserable worm. A lowly sinner. What arrogance to suggest that Christ, the Son of God, is just waiting around for a sinner like you to "accept" him! Are you kidding me?! LOL.
One can almost imagine the conversation, "Gee thanks for accepting me, MA, I'm only the Son of God, you know. Only died for your sins. Only been around since before creation. How flattered I am that you accepted me!"
If you are one of the elect then Christ accepts you, MA, not the other way around.
We might recognize our election rather suddenly. That is, those "born again" moments aren't when we decided to accept Christ. Instead, they are just the moments when we recognize that the decision has already been made. As the psalm says, before God knit me in the womb, He knew me. I was named and claimed before I was born.
He is the potter, we are the clay, MA.
As I said above...
Your objections to the doctrines of unconditional election have been answered again and again and again over the last 450 years or so. Seriously. They really have. One of the main objections to the doctrine of unconditional election (aka "predestination") is exactly the one you raise.
Do some reading on the topic.
If Stan is trying to explain the concept to you, then bless him. I pity him, but good for him trying to explain it to you.
"Umm...I think, according to Calvinists, that come under Irresistible Grace. But Alan can correct me if I'm wrong."
Yup.
Here MA,
Go read this:
http://birdsoftheair.blogspot.com/2011/02/inability.html
And a half dozen or so posts before it and after it.
Then go argue with the author.
If you're not going to provide actual quotes that demonstrate your claims, go argue with someone else.
Marshall...
What's clear is that you haven't shown the dude the grace you expect him to show the kids who produced the child.
You are the one who insists we speak up against sin/bad behavior. That's what I've done-just what you've suggested.
Now, do you have support/answers for the three questions I've asked (or ANY of the questions asked of you)?
What questions were those? Really, I'm only half-kidding, Dan. I'm really working tons of hours. Last week I put in 56. As we're nearing 200 comments here, where I'm trying to respond to four of you at times, I'm beginning to get a bit befuddled at keeping it all together.
Until then:
"You are the one who insists we speak up against sin/bad behavior. That's what I've done-just what you've suggested."
That you deplore the man's actions do not mean they are either sinful or bad. That's just your opinion. Fornication is both sinful AND bad as the Bible clearly states on more than one occasion. The pastor has not prevented anything but the use of the church to bless the child. There's no mention of not including the faith community, the parents or anything else. There's no harm to the child, no preventing it to come to Jesus or anything. Your reaction is unjustified and over the top out of YOUR sense of right and wrong, but no Biblically supported sense.
In his humble way, this pastor is taking a step, as clumsy as it may be, to stress the importance of a pure and holy existence as Christians. Rather than worry about negative reactions from the addled, I would expect you'd show more grace and support his intentions even if you think his methods are lacking. You could help dispel the stupidity of those who would look negatively on the child, or mock anyone who would propose the possibility. As I do.
So I don't know what support you would expect for this action. I do know that when expectations are high, people, especially young people, respond. Do you disagree with this? Do you really need some kind of documentation for this obvious truth? (I concede that some won't respond to anything---doesn't mitigate the truth)
But what I'd like to know is how your supposedly superior methods have been proven to end fornication by young people you know? How has being gracious and modeling good behavior had any impact on those in your circle of influence who enjoy the fun of getting in on? Do you simply say nothing but live your life, where as a married guy you get to get it on to your heart's content? Or do you ever say, "You can do what you want but you'd better damn well believe what the Bible says about the future of fornicators?" (or words to that effect) If there is no (figuratively speaking) grabbing by the scruff of the neck and making them understand the seriousness of ignoring God's will, how does grace save them if they think they are cool doing that which is so blatantly forbidden?
My problem is the contradictory nature of this idea of grace that you guys seem to hold. The way you guys express it leaves room to act as WE choose to act while still expecting that we are saved. If the fornicators (and I continue using this sin as it is from the point of the post) ignore the plainly stated fate the Bible describes for them, then their belief is false it would seem. Yet, you say they are saved by grace. It's not logical and I don't believe God works in illogical ways. (It's why I struggle with the Calvinist notions of election---either we have free will or we don't and if we do, that doesn't imply that God is lessened in sovereignty, especially considering it was His idea for us to have free will. It doesn't seem logical that He would give us free will, but not let us use it. Free will for what? To pick where to have lunch?)
I may have said this before, maybe not. It's late and I'm tired. But I wish to respond to the "favorite comment" of the story.
It's cute, but not an excuse to overlook the sin that produced the child. Considering the wording, I am presuming the speaker to be a child, likely small.
One thing that pops up first is the fact that the baby to be blessed is not the product of a virgin birth, as was Jesus. Next, is that His "mommy and daddy" were married if you consider God to be His daddy. God doesn't need a wedding and honeymoon in Maui. But, He did put Joseph in His place, so yes, Jesus mommy and daddy were definitely married any way you want to seriously look at it.
Alan,
"
"Umm...I think, according to Calvinists, that come under Irresistible Grace. But Alan can correct me if I'm wrong."
Yup."
So anything goes, is what you're saying. Cool.
What of those people who were always Christian believers for most of their lives and then became atheists? Are they of the elect or not? Are they still saved even though they reject the existence of God (assuming they're sincere as believer and non-believer equally)?
"What of those people who were always Christian believers for most of their lives and then became atheists? Are they of the elect or not? "
This gets to the doctrine of perseverance of the saints, or once saved always saved. My guess would be that if someone completely rejects Christ, they were never actually saved in the first place.
But that's just a guess because, unlike you, I don't attempt to make decision about salvation for God. I figure He's the one making those decisions, so I'll leave it up to him.
So, now, not only do you refuse to back up your obvious lies with actual quotes (because those quotes don't exist), and not only do you lie by whining that you don't have time to simply cut and paste (because obviously you DO have the time), but now you won't even go read the explanations of a fellow conservative.
Go ask Stan, this question, MA: "So anything goes, is what you're saying. Cool. "
From here on out I'll simply mock you for being the idiot you are. If you will not provide evidence for your arguments, if lie about why you do so, and if you mock traditional, orthodox beliefs and refuse to go educate yourself about them from a source I would imagine you would consider trustworthy, then you're just being an ass for the sake of being an ass. Not surprising because its the only thing you seem to do well. But don't expect addition serious discussion on doctrine or anything else until you start actually participating in a real discussion and not just yapping away again.
BTW, sure we have free will.
But since every decision we make is tainted by sin and offends God, I wonder why you think that's such a good thing. Why would you want free will, knowing how human beings use that free will? (Murder, rape, genocide, etc.) Frankly, looking at the way you behave, I would expect that you'd be happy to have God making some good decisions for you once in a while instead of the childish stupidity you engage in herein.
You want to be arrogant and have free will so you can do as you please, ignoring your Creator, so that you get the credit for your own salvation instead of Jesus.
"Hey look at me! I'm MA! *I* made the right choice, so I've saved myself!!"
No, you didn't. If you're saved, you were saved 2000 years ago by the son of a carpenter, not by anything you do.
You see God as the great heavenly Santa Claus who doles out presents (salvation) for good behavior. No behavior is good. We're all naughty, and none of us are nice. You've just confused God for Santa Claus.
What does "faith without works is dead" mean?
Listen to this once more, Alan. I am NOT going to look for any quotes to satisfy your demands. I have not made any specific claims as much as tried to get you, you putz, to explain YOUR understanding of the things you say you believe. I do not have the time to search hundreds or thousands of comments over the years to find all those that support the conclusions I have about you. If you think that I forget all the comments of all the other threads but this one when I say things regarding you, you're an idiot. This thread does not exist in a vaccuum. More to the point, I don't forget the impression you or anyone else has made over the years and pretend the Alan in THIS thread has never spoken in any previous thread. So once again, cram your demands for quotes. They ain't comin'. Blubber and weep about it all you want. Pout and stomp your little feet all you want. Call me names and ooh what a mean and stupid person I am all you want. You don't rank, pal.
"You want to be arrogant and have free will so you can do as you please, ignoring your Creator, so that you get the credit for your own salvation instead of Jesus."
A silly Calvinist charge, particularly when you use the theology to justify doing what YOU want to do, ignoring clear prohibitions in Scripture. And I never have taken credit for my salvation. I can choose it all I want, but it ain't mine if He doesn't give it to me. But if I don't choose Him, do I still get to be saved?
"You see God as the great heavenly Santa Claus who doles out presents (salvation) for good behavior."
You see Him as doling out presents for no reason whatsoever. Just because. Nothing we do matters. It's way too contradictory. I don't believe God works in such an illogical manner, providing free will that isn't free. I dig the concept of Him choosing us. I simply think there's some level of choosing back. One preacher I know put it as kind of an exchange, a partnership to some extent (words fail, as he didn't go in depth on the subject---fortunately, I don't have to rely on another radio sermon---he preaches where we're considering moving to). But still I admit that I don't get the Calvinist approach (especially in light of you personally). I know there's this thing about boasting. But of what is there to boast? It's almost liking boasting that one breathes or eats. Or that one wakes up in the morning. The choice is obvious. How does one boast for doing the obvious?
Friends, at this point on this blog, I'd like to cut things off. If you all would like to discuss matters of theology, please do so elsewhere. The only posts I want to see here now, is if Marshall would like to deal with these unanswered questions:
You have countered with, "but this church is trying to condemn wrong sexuality."
a. I have asked HOW refusing to bless a child condemns the parents' choices.
b. I have asked if you have ANY reasons to think that this approach would work.
c. I have asked if you have any reason from the Bible to support not blessing a child in a church service because of something the parents did.
THAT's the topic. Marshall, if you'd like to support your case, then answer these questions.
Otherwise, end of conversation.
I'll be more than happy to do this once again, Dan. Maybe you'll take note this time.
First, to be more clear, my position is that the pastor is attempting to point out the sinfulness of fornication. As I click on "Show Original Post", his message as stated in the story is, step up and provide for your family". So I'm actually deviating from his exact wording, but I think to engage in an act that produces a family, not marrying first, or fornicating, is the same as not stepping up, in that it is an example of the kids not even considering the family that will possibly come forth. In any case, I'll stand by my interpretation as I would wage the pastor wouldn't disagree with it.
a) The pastor is NOT refusing to bless the child. Why must I respond to this?
b) I have explained myself on this score. A culture that communally views a behavior as wrong will have the effect of lessening the frequency of that behavior. Think smoking.
c) No I don't, nor do I need to. You are only asking this to shut me up. You're taking a completely childish tack in demanding that if I don't find something in the Bible, then my opinion has no merit. To say it's unfair is understating it. What in Scripture justifies an actual church building as being required for ANY service? What requires a church building? Is not the church the people? The building is symbolic. So is the decision to not bless the child in it. As Scripture states that fornicators will not inherit the Kingdom, the symbol is that they will not inherit the privilege of being treated as if no sin has taken place, something so common today.
I believe I responded to all three of your questions, Dan, though not necessarily quite in order. Now what? Are you not yet satisfied? Are you still going with that BS "whimsy" defense?
Sorry, I've had a busy couple of weeks with more busy-ness yet to come.
Marshall, as to your answers...
The pastor is NOT refusing to bless the child. Why must I respond to this?
My point has been all along quite clear. The pastor/church is mistaken in refusing to bless the child IN THE CHURCH building. THAT is the context of my question to you, sorry if you didn't get that. So, I'll repeat the question yet again:
HOW does refusing to bless a child in the church building condemn the parents' choices?
Your attempt to answer this appears to be...
I have explained myself on this score. A culture that communally views a behavior as wrong will have the effect of lessening the frequency of that behavior.
MY question: HOW DOES NOT BLESSING A CHILD IN A CHURCH SERVICE/BUILDING HAVE THE EFFECT OF DECREASING THE FREQUENCY OF TEEN SEXUALITY?
Your answer is a fine hunch, but it is unsupported and, quite frankly, ridiculous. If you have no support for this wacky hunch (refusing to bless a child in church = decreased sexual acting out in teens), then state it plainly ("I have NO support for this other than my wild hunch that I'm right") and move on.
No need to respond unless you begin with something like, "According to this study I read..." I GET that you have a hunch. I'm calling that hunch unsupported and goofy. Move on.
Continued...
Post a Comment