The non-binding thing is probably what they are doing to prevent the church from having hot internal divisions.The synod's decisions are not binding and the vote will not require pastors to provide marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples. Some United Church of Christ ministers already perform such ceremonies.
While the United Church of Christ has not had the widespread divisions other major denominations have experienced over homosexuality, some member churches had said that such a vote could prompt them to leave the denomination, and one group called for Mr. Thomas's resignation when he announced his support of the resolution.
Now, I get a bit argumentative about whether or not the government should recognize gay marriages with anywhere near the status as opposite sex marriages. However it would be safe to say that this public and legal movement toward the more liberal inclusiveness doesn't bother me NEARLY as much as when churches decide to encourage this sort of thing.
It's great that it was one of the first churches to stand up against slavery. There really was no support in scripture for slavery, or that blacks were somehow less than whites. Most Christians were on board by the middle 20th century when civil rights finally put that issue to it's legal conclusion (not it's social conclusion, as some would argue that racism still prevails in places). However, there is ample Biblical support for only having men be head pastor of churches. I'm not even going to touch "inclusive-language hymnals" for the moment.The United Church of Christ prides itself on being in the forefront of human and civil rights issues. On its Web site, the denomination says it and its predecessors were among the first churches to take a stand against slavery, in 1700, the first to ordain a woman, in 1853, and the first to publish an inclusive-language hymnal, in 1995.
Its slogan, "God is still speaking," is meant to suggest that the Bible is not the sole source of divine instruction, and that Scripture must be interpreted in today's context.
The equal marriage rights resolution states, in part, "Ideas about marriage have shifted and changed dramatically throughout human history, and such change continues even today." It continues, "In the Gospel we find ground for a definition of marriage and family relationships based on the affirmation of the full humanity of each partner, lived out in mutual care and respect for one another."
The statement that really stopped me cold was the one I highlighted above. To say that the Bible is not the only source of divine instruction is borderline heresy. I don't make that statement lightly.
Consider that the writers of the new testimate were all, without exception, taught directly by Jesus himself. John says at the latter end of Revelation that "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book." Rev 22:18. That leads to the argument that anyone other than an apostle directly taught by Jesus cannot add to the doctrine of Christianity.
Now, that's not to say that experience can't add to our faith, or that we shouldn't pay attention to today's context when teaching from God's word. It's just that personal experience must be interpreted by the words of the Bible, and only when the two are in complete union will experience be treated as God-given wisdom. In that sense, we use our experiences to confirm our faith, not add to it.
The second issue is modern context. Again, the thinking is wrong here that we should interpret the Bible in today's context. When we interpret scripture, we must take it in the context in which it was given. This is why Christian scholarship is so important. We want leaders and pastors who have been instructed to read the original Greek and Hebrew and understand the times in which the Apostles and Prophets were living and what their messages meant to the people of the time. Only then, once you understand what they were trying to say, then you try to relate that to today's context.
If you try to directly take an American English bible and interpret the words you see in today's context, you will inevitably get it wrong. I think that the United Church of Christ gets it wrong.
And it makes me pretty upset for the future of my faith. Secular voices are going to label those with more conservative views of what the Bible says as being "right wing" or "fundamentalist" in our views, when our views are actually more traditional and Biblically accurate.
2 comments:
"To say that the Bible is not the only source of divine instruction is borderline heresy"
To say that the Blble is the ONLY source of divine instruction is not supportable. I would like to know where the Bible itself says that. Maybe the Bible is all truth but that doesn't mean there is no truth anywhere else.
1) The method of the New Testament authors (and Jesus as well) when dealing with spiritual truth was to appeal to the Scriptures as the final rule of authority. Take the temptation of Christ in Matthew 4 as an example. The Devil tempted Jesus, yet Jesus used the authority of scripture, not tradition, nor even His own divine power, as the source of authority and refutation. To Jesus, the Scriptures were enough and sufficient. If there is any place in the New Testament where the idea of extra-biblical revelation or tradition could have been used, Jesus' temptation would have been a great place to present it. But Jesus does no such thing. His practice was to appeal to scripture. Should we do any less having seen his inspired and perfect example?
The New Testament writers constantly appealed to the scriptures as their base of authority in declaring what was and was not true biblical teaching: Matt. 21:42; John 2:22; 1 Cor. 15:3-4; 1 Peter 1:10-12; 2:2; 2 Peter 1:17-19, etc. Of course, Paul in Acts 17:11 says, "Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so." Paul commends those who examined God's word for the test of truth. He did not commend them for appealing to tradition. Therefore, we can see that the method used by Jesus and the apostles for determining spiritual truth was to appeal to scripture, not tradition. In fact, it is the scriptures that refute the traditions of men in many instances.
2) It is not required of Scripture to have a statement to the effect, "The Bible alone is to be used for all spiritual truth," in order for sola scriptura to be true. Many doctrines in the Bible are not clearly stated, yet they are believed and taught by the church. For example, there is no statement in the Bible that says there is a Trinity, or that Jesus has two natures (God and man), or that the Holy Spirit is the third person in the Godhead. Yet, each of the statements is considered true doctrine within Christianity, being derived from biblical references. So, for the Catholic to require the Protestant to supply chapter and verse to prove Sola Scriptura is valid, is not necessarily consistent with biblical exegetical principles, that they themselves approve of when examining such doctrines as the Trinity, the hypostatic union, etc.
3) In appealing to the Bible for authentication of Sacred Tradition, the Catholics have shown that the Bible is superior to Sacred Tradition -- for the lesser is blessed by the greater (Heb. 7:7). You see, if the Bible said do not trust Sacred Tradition, then Roman Catholic Sacred Tradition would be instantly and obviously invalidated. If the Bible said to trust Sacred Tradition, then the Bible is authenticating it and the Roman Catholic Church would cite the Scriptures to that effect. In either case, the Scriptures hold the place of final authority and by that position, are shown to be superior to Sacred Tradition. This means that Sacred Tradition is not equal in authority to the Word of God.
If Sacred Tradition were really inerrant as it is said to be, then it would be equal with the Bible. But, Gods word does not say that Sacred Tradition is inerrant or inspired as it does say about itself (2 Tim. 3:16). To merely claim that Sacred Tradition is equal and in agreement with the Bible does not make it so. Furthermore, to assert that Sacred Tradition is equal to Scripture is to effectively leave the canon wide open to doctrinal addition. Since the traditions of men change, then to use tradition as a determiner of spiritual truth would mean that over time new doctrines that are not in the Bible would be added and that is exactly what has happened in Catholicism with doctrines such as purgatory, praying to Mary, indulgences, etc. Furthermore, if they can use Sacred Tradition as a source for doctrines not explicit in the Bible, then why would the Mormons then be wrong for having additional revelation as well?
4) If the Bible is not used to verify and test Sacred Tradition, then Sacred Tradition is functionally independent of the Word of God. If it is independent of Scripture, then by what right does it have to exist as an authoritative spiritual source equivalent to the Bible? How do we know what is and is not true in sacred tradition if there is no inspired guide by which to judge it. If the Roman Catholic says that the inspired guide is the Roman Catholic Church, then it is committing the fallacy of circular reasoning. In other words, is saying at the Roman Catholic Church is inspired because the Roman Catholic Church is inspired.
5) Sacred Tradition is invalidated automatically if it contradicts the Bible, and it does. Of course, the Catholic will say that it does not. But, Catholic teachings such as purgatory, penance, indulgences, praying to Mary, etc., are not in the Bible. A natural reading of God's Word does not lend itself to such beliefs and practices. Instead, the Catholic Church has used Sacred Tradition to add to God's revealed word and then extracted out of the Bible whatever verses that might be construed to support their doctrines of Sacred Tradition.
Nevertheless, the Catholic apologist will state that both the Bible and Sacred tradition are equal in authority and inspiration and to put one above another is a false comparison. But, by what authority does the Catholic say this? Is it because it claims to be the true church, descended from the original apostles? So? Making such claims doesn't mean they are true. Besides, even if it were true, and CARM does not grant that it is, there is no guarantee that the succession of church leaders is immune to error. We saw it creep in with Peter and Paul rebuked him for it in Gal. 2. Are the Catholic church leaders better than Peter?
To continue, is it from tradition that the Catholic Church authenticates its Sacred Tradition? If so, then there is no check upon it. Is it from quotes of some of the church Fathers who say to follow Tradition? If so, then the church fathers are given the place of authority comparable to scripture. Is it from the Bible? If so, then Sacred Tradition holds a lesser position than the Bible because the Bible is used as the authority in validating Tradition. Is it because the Catholic Church claims to be the means by which God communicates His truth? Then, the Catholic Church has placed itself above the Scriptures.
6) One of the mistakes made by the Catholics is to assume that the Bible is derived from Sacred Tradition. This is false. The Church simply recognized the inspired writings of the Bible. They were in and of themselves authoritative. Various "traditions" in the Church served only to recognize what was from God. Also, to say the Bible is derived from Sacred Tradition is to make the Bible lesser than the Tradition as is stated in Heb. 7:7 that the lesser is blessed by the greater, but this cannot be since Catholicism appeals to the Bible to authenticate its tradition.
Post a Comment