Episcopal Church leaders set to consider blessing rite for homosexual couples
Sixteen fractious years after it allowed the ordination of homosexuals, the Episcopal Church appears poised to adopt a blessing rite for same-sex couples wishing to wed...
...Advocates of the blessing - already written, down to the "We have gathered here today" and "I do" and the exchange of rings - stress that it is not a sacrament and would not confer "marriage" on the couple.
Episcopal Church law defines marriage as the union of man and woman, and there are no plans to change that this year.
So, the Episcopal church that started to allow "ordained" - and I do use the term loosely - homosexuals and now, 16 little years later, they are blessing homosexuals who have chosen to commit sodomy and engage in what is clearly condemned not only in the Bible but throughout Christian history. So, why is this "blessing rite" a bad thing? Well, let's look at the Presbyterian Church of the USA. Note my emphasis.
Lesbian reverend at heart of Presbyterian gay marriage quandary
As the Presbyterian Church U.S.A.'s legislative body considers this week whether to allow ministers to perform same-sex marriages, Reverend Jane Spahr will not be present. But in some ways she will be at the center of the proceedings.
Spahr, a 69-year-old lesbian evangelist who has defied the church and been rebuked by a church court for performing same-sex weddings in California, has been an outspoken advocate for liberalizing church policy on weddings.
The Presbyterian Church allows ministers to bless same-sex unions but prohibits them from solemnizing such civil nuptials. But at its biennial convention, which is being held in Spahr's native Pittsburgh, church leaders are debating whether to change that and may reach a decision this week.
One proposal is to change how church doctrine defines marriage. Another would interpret the constitution's language on marriage as descriptive, rather than prohibitive, and allow pastors in states where gay marriage is legal to immediately begin performing same-sex weddings.
Notice several things: 1) the Presbyterian church, much like the Episcopalians, allow openly gay men and women to be "ordained" - once again, I use the term very loosely. 2) The Presbyterians are one step ahead of the Episcopalians in that they already bless gay unions. 3) What follows from these is the natural inclination toward accepting same-sex marriages, thus, the Episcopals are merely a couple of year away from performing same-sex marriages, and why not? These Protestant denominations have long ago thrown out the practice of having a celibate priesthood, a male-only priesthood, heterosexual men be their only form of priests, and of not accepting contraception as the evil that it is. It is from this last point that we can trace the steps towards damnation. R. Albert Molher, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, recently stated in an article the following:
Can Christians Use Birth Control?
The effective separation of sex from procreation may be one of the most important defining marks of our age - and one of the most omnious. This awareness is spreading among American evangelicals, and it threatens to set loose a firestorm.
Most evangelical Protestants greeted the advent of modern birth control technologies with applause and relief. Lacking any substantial theology of marriage, sex or the family, evangelicals welcomed the development of "The Pill"...
...For many evangelical Christians, birth control has been an issue of concern only for Catholics. When Pope Paul VI released his famous encyclical outlawing artifical birth control, Humanae Vitae, most evangelicals responded with disregard - perhaps thankful that evangelicals had no pope who could hand down a similar edict. Evangelical couples became devoted users of birth control technologies...
...we must start with the rejection of the contraceptive mentality that sees pregnancy and children as impositons to be avoided rather than as gifts to be recieved, loved and nurtured...
...we should look closely at the Catholic moral argument as found in Humanae Vitae. Evangelicals will find themselves in surprising agreement with much of the encyclical's argument. As the Pope warned, widespread use of the Pill has led to "serious consequences" including marital infidelity and rampant sexual immorality. In reality, the Pill allowed a near-total abandonment of Christian sexual morality in the larger culture. Once the sex act was severed from the liklihood of childbearing, the traditional structure of sexual morality collapsed...
...the Bible must be the ruling authority. For most evangelicals, the major break with Catholic teaching comes at the insistence that "it is necessary that each conjugal act remain ordained in itself to the procreating of human life." That is, that every act of marital intercourse must be fully and equally open to the gift of children. This claims too much, and places inordinate importance on individual acts of sexual intercourse, rather than the larger integrity of the conjugal bond.
The focus on "each and every act" of sexual intercourse within a faithful marriage that is open to the gift of children goes beyond the biblical demand...
...Christian couples are not ordered by Scripture to maximize the largest number of children that could be conceived...
...evangelical couples may, at times, choose to use contraceptives in order to plan their families and enjoy the pleasures of the marital bed...
...Therefore, Christians may make careful and discriminating use of proper technologies, but must never buy into the contraceptive mentality.
Wow. Simply amazing. The President of the Seminary of the 2nd largest group of Christians actually admits that those crazy Catholics have it right in stating that contraception leads to other evils (see here) BUT, he stops just short of fully accepting the truth as it is laid out right in front of him. Talk about being stubborn, and that final statement, what a way to straddle the fence! On the one hand, don't buy into the contraceptive mentality but on the other hand, you can use contraceptives. W...T...F? How is this possible?
Mr. Mohler made it a point to distictively set Catholics apart from Protestant when he said that Humanae Vitae went too far in asking all Christians not to use contraceptives and that every time a married man and women share in the congugal act, it must remain open to life, always. This is, apparently where the Southern Baptist HAVE TO draw the line, because to agree with this Catholic statement is to agree with a whole slew of Catholic thought and teaching. This is where Mr. Mohler attempts to reconcile heretical beliefs with reality. He states that Catholic view "goes beyond the biblical demand" but, what he is stating is an absolute fallacy: Use contraceptives because you can but don't used them IF they're abortifacients and IF they somehow in some manner might, perhaps, contradict YOUR PERSONAL religious convictions which may or may not be acceptable as a Christian. In other words, Mr. Mohler doesn't even know if contraception is evil or not!
Instead of erring on the side of caution, he instead leaves it up to the Protestant to decide for themselves. No other explaination is needed other than this to sum up what Protestantism is: a personal conviction of a religious Christian belief with a collection of books canonized by the Early Catholic Church minus, 7 books. This is what having no authority breeds, it breeds ever increasing docrinal changes that are usually of Ceasar and not of God. Think about it, how much is the Episcopal and Presbyterian church willing to change? At this point anything is possible! Why their whole liturgy and worship could change and it would be perfectly fine, they could give Communion - and I do use the term in the loosest possible manner - to a dog and it would be okay. Have sex out of marriage? Don't worry about it, you're not sinning, because everyone is doing it just make sure you don't have a baby out of wedlock and don't become part of the contraceptive culture! What a joke, honestly, in 100 years would modern day Episcopalians and Presbyterians church members even be able to recognize their church? Would it even matter by then?
This is why the Catholic Church is what she is, the pillar and foundation of truth and, as such, the truth NEVER CHANGES. If Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, then He too can never change. If in fact all of these Protestant groups claim to be following Jesus, then why must they constantly change and update their fallacious doctrines to be in tune with society? Were they wrong in what they penned originally, because if that is the case, then they never had the Spirit of truth to begin with, right? Are they wrong now and simply biding their time until the next great societal change occurs so they can adapt their teachings to it and continue to evolve as a church?
The simple fact that Mr. Mohler can't address these questions and leaves the artificial contraceptive question obscenely open to interpretation could only lead a rational Christian to conclude that IF contraception could be construed to be a sin, why even entertain it? IF there is the slightest chance that contraception could take you away from God, why even gamble on that assumption? How interesting that these Protestant churches could so easily look at evil in the face an yet not recognize it. As Matthew 7:16 says:
By their fruits, you shall know them.
Quite frankly, I've never been too fond of eating rotten fruits, are you?
No comments:
Post a Comment