Fundies Fear Polygamy more than Gay Marriage

Dr. Andrew Selle (et al) before the Vermont Legislature in 2009.

Covenant Orthodox Presbyterian Church, the sole OPC representative for Vermont, sent an ordained pastor and Ruling Elder to the floor of the Vermont Legislature to testify. He's echoing the "What's Next, POLYGAMY!?" sentiment among conservative Christians all across the country. I thought this was germane since the matter is now before our Supreme Court and the plural friendly Christians of this world are content to let gays and fouled up fundies argue the matter.






Whatever result we get, I'm sure it's not going to help us. They would have had a hard time with King David in the congregation. The way these theological pillars of wisdom talk, they'd have allied with the gays to burn ole Dave and I at the stake, prior to granting the right to civil unions to the homosexuals of this country.

To my plural sympathetic friends: Don't come crying to me when the result (either today or in the future) contains unintended consequences that interfere with your "lifestyle."

More →

Sphere: Related Content

I lose

The question is, how far do I take this, or has it gone far enough?

I'm thinking (and praying) about it.

One of the vain hopes I have had, the longshot scenario, is that in some way in my dispute with the church over marriage, I would win a sort of stalemate, where I would be allowed to believe what I believe, and the church would view that belief with disfavor, but nevertheless, allow me to hold my views nonetheless.

Always the greater possibility would be that the church would bend every rule and forsake every scriptural principal, to silence me. Surprise surprise.

One of the strategies in dealing with the church was to take one of the elders before his certification agency and thereby apply pressure to a member of the session, and thereby lever the session.

Not exactly Biblical procedure, but we've long since departed that format. "Peacemaker Ministries" whitewashed the whole issue, let Dr. Selle see my complaint, but never let me see his answers, and judged (shock) in his favor.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Confronting the Church on Marriage, Part V

The following is cross posted at "Vermont Polygamy." When we last left off, I promised to take up this discussion, interacting with Hebrew Language professor Stewart "Woody" Lauer on the topic of "Elder Monogamy," and his surprise admission. That was last year, then several stories I had been following blew up, and dominated my time.

Sorry about that, it is hard for me at least, to maintain burning intensity of interest on several fronts at once, I don't know about you, but that's me.

I had written the following for public consumption about 6 years ago, and had sent it to the session of my church in April of last year, who then sent it along to Dr. Lauer. It is the argument based on the supposed argument that Elders are to be monogamous. It's a sort of "AHA!!" contention that is offered to polygyny proponents by monogamy only proponents. I lay aside the contention of some that the Greek word "mia" is mistranslated for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that calls our translations into so much disrepute that we would have to all go learn Greek and Hebrew to continue the discussion. I'll accept, at least for the sake of discussion with the OPC, Dr. Lauer, and the COPC session that it means "Husband of One Wife."

"Elders are to be husbands of one wife" Again, "dicto simpliciter." This is a condition of office, not a rant against polygyny. Again, take a deep breath. The argument using this verse employs the notion that it is an ideal to be striven for. Credible, until you realize you've just said women are sub creatures. Besides it's virtual proof that there were polygynous couples in the early church. Otherwise why say anything about it?

Remember this is a talking point, designed to get the conversation going. There is a great deal more to talk about on the polygyny side of the argument, and perhaps we will get to those other points. The most significant contention I make here, is conceded outright:

Dr. Lauer - "I agree with the last two sentences, above."

I've highlighted what he agrees with. First some housekeeping. I hadn't noticed in 6 years that I said something incredibly silly that NO ONE has ever picked up on. "Polygynous couples?" That should be families, not couples but the concept of the adult component of family being a "couple" is so deeply embedded in our culture, that I said it, repeated it, didn't pick up on it, and no one did for all that period of time where I have used that form of the argument as a "foot in the door" when discussing polygyny.

Dr. Lauer concedes without a fight that one of the major contentions of many "monogamy only proponents," that "polygyny is not mentioned in the New Testament and not present in the early church" is completely false. They were there, that's it, and from my point of view at least, the practice was so unremarkable that it's only mentioned in passing. Indeed, if you were to ask of a Disciple why they never mention polygyny as part of a claim they didn't, because they were downgrading the practice, you'd get a really weird look, like "we didn't mentioned beards either, dummy."

All of what I am doing here, has now come to light in my church over the issue of membership. After months of stonewalling me on membership, I went to the congregation and said "they won't let me join" and the church responded with an email in which they said the following:

"(Our refusal to allow Hugh to join) involves (him) both believing and publicly advocating, especially via the internet, a position that that is so seriously sinful that no church throughout all of Christendom accepts it."

Which makes you wonder if they even read the response they contracted with Dr. Lauer, to write.

The position was "so seriously sinful" that Paul, the apostle, whose writings are the ones on which we base doctrine and church governance, didn't think it was even important enough, to mention. He doesn't mention it in the face of SPEAKING to congregations in which he looks out over the church, identifies and sees (and knows) men who are in church, with several of their wives in tow.

In the past a friend (now deceased), of mine and I had remarked to one another, if we ever got past the first rung of church elders, and reached the "intelligentsia" round, very quickly many of the arguments routinely raised and fervently held to, would be dropped. That drop was audible. Dr. Don Dean and I have had discussions with prominent theologians who admit in one way or another, privately, that our arguments are not unsound, they just won't sell in the church. In Dr. Lauer's response through the session of COPC a number of such concessions occur. This is one of them.

It is in fact powerfully convincing that polygyny is an acceptable practice when it's going on right in front of Jesus, his disciples and the growing church in the New Faith. It's going on, and the disciples and apostles say NOTHING whatsoever about it except that Paul seems to be saying "If you have a polygynous man in church, don't make him an elder."

Woody goes on to say that it indicates disfavor, but that is frankly impossible. Again now the first part of my contention comes back into play.

Dr. Lauer - "(I)t is clear that the apostles (representing Jesus officially; 1 Cor 14:36) viewed it with disfavor, disqualifying the man from office. This official, negative attitude toward the practice on the part of the Lord’s apostles cannot be dismissed so lightly."

There are some, who employ the phrase "it is clear" because it is precisely the opposite, it's not clear.

Dr. Lauer is easily refuted. If those disqualified from the office of Elder are viewed with "disfavor," then he is saying women are viewed with disfavor. (Elders as husbands unpacked, means among other things, elders are to be men.) Any other man that qualifies for office on marital status can be disqualified also because they are not "apt to teach." Paul himself says that teaching is a gift:

"Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?" - 1st Corinthians 12:29 (ESV)

This is extremely simple logic. Some of the qualfiers for office of Elder in the church have to do with morals, and indeed, on the face of it, it could very well be that being polygynous is being morally compromised, or at least "morally not quite the best thing." Elders are not to be drunks for instance, but Paul mixes up his list naming things that are merely things Elders should and should not be, but otherwise acceptable, and things that no one should be, particularly elders. A man not gifted by God to teach is not to be an Elder. A woman, no matter how she is gifted, is not to be an elder. Neither are viewed with disfavor, it does not logically follow that a polygynous man is viewed with disfavor. We know from other passages of scripture that drunkenness is a bad thing, there is no such corresponding scripture for a much married man.

Though the this post is short, and Woody's answer is short, it is what you do when you're trying to avoid an uncomfortable truth. Unless you change your position on the subject, you give it a short shrift and blow past it. This is what Woody does, but not before showing us a very important fact.

Polygyny is mentioned in the New Testament. It is NOT commented on, in that context, as a negative. The most important theologians in the church, Christ, and his immediate Apostles say nothing whatsoever about polygyny being wrong or substandard, even though polygyny is right in front of all them, among the believers. The most that seems to be said is; "Don't make them, and women, and people who can't teach, Elders."

More →

Sphere: Related Content

The WCF is not the final word. Who says? The WCF!!

I have renewed my written insistence that the local body of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church admit me as a member in a letter sent via email today:

The OPC uses the American revision of the WCF, it would seem, since it is numbered in Arabic numerals, and chapter 25 deletes a reference to the pope being Antichrist.

"There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God."

The original, and the revised version of the WCF Chapter 25, says this:

"The purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a church on earth, to worship God according to his will."

Thus per the WCF, there is error in the WCF, and by your allegiance to it, you say there is error in the OPC and in it's local representative, the Covenant Orthodox Presbyterian Church of Vermont.

I am, and have been appealing to this principle of WCF Chapter 25. For this to be faithfully adhered to there can be no artificial restriction on time or subject of discussion with regard to any article of the WCF. Granted, there are those articles that if rejected would cause a man to be no believer at all, but then their interest in the church should wane. For all other articles and chapters of the WCF, there must be the possibility of discussion. Marriage is not an issue central to salvation. If it was, King David burns in hell along with his wives as do most of the Kings of Israel and Judah. They reside there with the Lawgiver Moses and with the father of the prophet Samuel as well as Israel himself, and Abraham.

I wholeheartedly agree that if I am shown to be at variance with WCF, there is cause for discussion. Discussion I contend, has yet to take place. Carl and I spent most of our time in fellowship discussing other topics, and at the slightest pressing of the issue, which would have had to have been in a public place among unbelievers, he became reticent.

The session has met with me only once and only to gain an appraisal of my point of view. There is no record of conversation between the session and I, or any member of it, in a face to face setting with the express topic of marriage, monogamy and polygyny on the table.

The sessions only interactive response with any argument I have made is actually that of "Woody" Lauer. My reply to Woody in June of 2009 remains unanswered. Indeed, the session has corresponded with me since that time, most notably in July, but made no interaction with my responses to Woody, most notably my refutation, complete and utter, of his contention that Kings were directed to be monogamous and his appeal to the nuances of the Hebrew word "Rabah" and it's stem and aspect.

In the cases of the first use of "rabah" in verse 16 of Deuteronomy 17, the "stem" and "aspect" of the word are the same as in the case of it's use with wives in verse 17. It is the "Hiphil" stem and "imperfect" aspect. This renders the two constructions parallel. Furthermore, there are some other uses of the same stem and aspect that are worth looking into. Genesis 16:10:

"Moreover, the angel of the LORD said to her, 'I will greatly multiply your descendants so that they will be too many to count.' "(NAS)

Or Genesis 17:2:

"I will establish My covenant between Me and you, And I will multiply you exceedingly."

Genesis 22:17:

"...I will greatly bless you, and I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your seed shall possess the gate of their enemies."

Genesis 28:3:

"May God Almighty bless you and make you fruitful and multiply you, that you may become a company of peoples."

This simply cannot be a word that is confined to the use "make more than one." As it is used, in the immediate context, and others, the Hebrew "rabah" in the Hiphil stem and imperfect aspect means "a bunch." It may mean "a really big bunch." It is in fact conceivable, by stretch of the imagination, that the 1000 consorts of Solomon were actually not too many. This is consistent with Nehemiah chiding him only for foreign wives.

If interpreted to mean "more than one wife" which is distinctly inconsistent with "rabah's" usage elsewhere by Moses in other books, the interpretation would have the effect of limiting a King to one horse. The sentence construction again, is parallel. Whatever is said about a wife, is also being said about a horse. If a King is not to have more than one wife, he is also being said to be forbidden to have more than one horse. If a King lives in a way that is instructive to the rest of the populace, then indeed we are to have only one wife, as the King would, and indeed, only one horse. This would make animal husbandry problematic, and getting horses a really big problem because in this same passage we are told that a King was not to go down to Egypt again, for the purposes of multiplying horses. Why not say "don't have horses at all?" which would be a far simpler instruction. This is only one example of well documented answers I gave to Woody's letter to the session, which was intended for me.

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church also takes this position:

"Members are received into a local Orthodox Presbyterian congregation by the session on the basis of their credible profession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. While members are exposed to the Reformed faith from the pulpit, from the teaching ministry of the church, and from the sincere convictions of their elders and deacons, they are not required to receive and adopt the Confession of Faith and Catechisms as a standard for membership....

All church officers-ministers, ruling elders, and deacons-are required to receive and adopt the Confession and Catechisms as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Bible, and to approve of the government, discipline, and worship of the Church."

This helps the church to be unified and all of one mind. Officers are, by the way, allowed to take exceptions to the Standards, within reason. This allowance somewhat distinguishes the Westminster Standards from the Scriptures (on which we are NOT allowed to take exception!).

http://opc.org/qa.html?question_id=56

http://opc.org/whatis.html

To hold me to a standard the rest of the denomination does not share, and to hold me to that standard without discussion, both are sins. I renew my insistence that I be accepted as a member of COPC in Barre Vermont.

Hugh McBryde

More →

Sphere: Related Content

The Failure of Church Discipline and the Failure of the Reformation

It occurs to me that the reformation is failing, because church discipline, isn't working.

In my chosen denomination, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, it is viewed that "the church" in Christ's description of church disciplinary procedure is the leadership. In a Presbyterian church, conservative or liberal, that body is the session. Ok, let's go with that. First though, let's look at the text of Matthew 18:

"If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church (ἐκκλησία-ekklēsia): but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

The Greek word for church (ἐκκλησία ekklēsia), really doesn't lend itself to a leadership gathering but more towards the whole church. That's the first point. The second is this procedure does not lend itself to tight control over the congregation by the leadership. Anything decided in private can be appealed to the most public configuration of the church and it's leadership, if it is indeed meant as it would seem here, that when you lose the one on one, the two or three on one, you take it to everyone. Since the word can mean the ENTIRE Church, such as the "Church Universal," it can mean a decision can be appealed to the whole of a denomination. This can only be undertaken when individual bodies are responsible to one another, hence, in part I would think, Presbyterian governance, and why I prefer it.

Taking the narrow interpretation favored by church and denominational leadership, that "the church" Christ refers to in disciplinary matters, is THEM, the leadership, there is still this uncomfortable reality. What if the session, who is the church in this formulation is held by someone, either in the session, or being accused before the session, to be wrong. It could be the accused, the accuser, a minority member of the session. Let us go to 1st Timothy 5:

"Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear. I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality."

The problem would be, that you could conceive of the session as of a Presbyterian church as a constituted court, as described in 1st Corinthians 6, but when that court behaves badly, who is the judge? The court? In the case of session misbehavior, either by one or all of them, the only place for such judgment is the church, because in misbehaving, one would expect that most of the time, they would cover their own misbehavior. 1st Timothy 5 then becomes a "never use" procedure, which I constantly refer to as the "emergency stop" of the movie "Spaceballs." (If you ever saw it, you remember that the "emergency stop" was labeled with a tag that said "never use.")

So of necessity then, the court of last resort in the immediate area of the church, is the church body itself, at the very least, because the issue of Elder misconduct is the province of the church as a whole. The discipline of the Elder, is to be public, for the specific reason that it serves as a warning to all. The church will publicly deal with it's highest leaders, and punish them publicly which is a statement that no man's power exceeds the rules of the church. The rules of the church as both Christ and Paul laid them out.

It may be that "going before the church" is going before the session, but if the session is questioned, as it is in my recent encounter with them, the battle goes before the church. Herein is the problem, because the denomination (and most of them for that matter) teach THEY are the court of last resort, not the congregation, and the congregation, eager to be uninvolved in the matter, assent to that. In trying to take the issue to the congregation, the congregation viscerally rejects hearing the case, and becomes angry, and the session becomes indignant, and then starts massively bending rules, such as deciding in private, receiving anonymous accusations and then employing the sword of civil authority, to enforce their views. How can this be the public process of Matthew 18 where accusers go in person, the courts of 1st Corinthians 6, which are to be used instead of the shame of public ones and the center ring keel-hauling of the elders? It's not. But that's the way things have gone.

The result of this is moral failings are not aired out in public, which is consistent with "confessing your sins one to another" and doctrinal questions don't get dealt with. Doctrinal failing on the part of an individual is "heresy." The session Polices membership, assigns the name heresy to doctrine, the member cannot be a member, or is thrown out of membership in private tribunals, and there can be no questioning of doctrine. We get then Westminster Confessions of Faith thrown in our faces, and while the Bible is supposed to be the final word, the real final word is the WCF vision of what the Bible says, and it can never be questioned, or you sin, and you're thrown out and the congregation doesn't want to hear it.

Why then haven't we reformed anything lately (Semper Reformanda)? Because you can't get anything past the guard dogs of the denomination, and the denominations as a whole, would prefer to sleep. The snarling reaction of my congregation this week which essentially was "I don't want to be involved," proving why we, as conservative reformed people, are dying out. Some estimates are that there are less that 700,000 in the United States and some of the larger denominations in this country are actually comprised of ethnic Koreans, evangelized and convinced, who have moved to this country. That's about 10% of conservative reformed Presbyterian membership all by itself. We stay perpetually stuck in the confessional mode, swearing to authorities like the WCF. Functionally speaking though, if anything is wrong with the WCF or various other reformation era catechisms or confessions, there is no way to change them unless what we do is destroy our faith, as theologically liberal denominations have done.

None of what happened this week was really a surprise. The minor details of exact procedure and speed of action could be said to be mildly surprising. I knew for instance, that the church would "Go G" on me, I just didn't know exactly how. I was fully expecting to be served, at work, with a restraining order. It just worked out a little differently than that.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

I get the boot (UPDATED) & miss Church for the first time

I have been forbidden, to enter my church or come to it's grounds:

"Dear Hugh,

We, the elders of Covenant OPC, are agreed that we must ask you not to attend any worship services, classes, or any other church events, or go onto the church property, effective immediately, and until further notice.

These are our reasons: 1. Your words posted on your blog on 12/23/09, 'It won't be long until my passion spills out into the aisles of my own church, and I can't tell you what will happen then,' have been understood as extremely threatening to some in the church, and they have caused real fear in their hearts. In reading your words in context, the session does not understand them as an intent of physical violence; however, they are so incredibly inflammatory that it has raised even more serious concerns about you. You sound like a very angry man. We have a responsibility to protect the well-being of the flock, and we will take whatever actions are necessary to do that. 2. Our boundary with you has been that you do not talk with church people about your views about polygamy. By sending your email to the church list, in violation of presbyterian government, you effectively (if perhaps unintentionally) violated that boundary by virtually insuring that more church people would search and find your blog. 3. Our reason for having welcomed you to attend services was that you might grow under the preaching of the Word under the oversight of church leadership. Your words and actions indicate that you have rejected that oversight. That being the case, we have even greater concern about your stated agenda to spread your false teaching, and we must do whatever we can to protect our brothers and sisters from it.

Hugh, we hope and pray that this will not be a permanent requirement, but that you will repent of your errors and publicly repudiate them. As a first step we would like to have from you in writing immediately an explanation of the words from your blog quoted above. Second, if that explanation is satisfactory to us, we would be willing to meet with you at our regularly scheduled session meeting on January 11, 2010, to discuss our decision with you, to pray for you, and review your status. Please let us know if you would like to meet with us then. Again, though, we insist that you do not attend any COPC functions before that time.

Sincerely,

Pastor Carl Durham, Mike Breen, Chris Liff, and Andy Selle

The Session of Covenant Orthodox Presbyterian Church"

Let me explain the excerpt then:

"Your words posted on your blog on 12/23/09, 'It won't be long until my passion spills out into the aisles of my own church, and I can't tell you what will happen then,' have been understood as extremely threatening to some in the church, and they have caused real fear in their hearts."

"Spill(ing) into the aisles of my church," means only that the discussion, would move to that physical location. I can't control others, I don't know what will happen when the discussion is public and at church. Only in my wildest imaginations would I ever think that it would become threatening to anyone. I am not, a violent man. I would not come to church armed in any way. I am not skilled in the martial arts, nothing would happen at my initiation. Any encounter would have to be initiated by another person. All responses on my part would be verbal.

The session ignores the rest of the post in which I condemn John Brown, who took matters moral into his own hands, violently. The session ignores my condemnation of the "Freemen." The session is in fact ignoring my absence from the Thursday Night Christmas Eve service. I thought I would give a chance to cooler heads, to prevail. While saying that in context they didn't see it as implying violence, but turning around and saying that I am an angry man, I don't think the session is being truthful.

In addition, the visits to my blog, which have now started by the congregation, did not start until A.) The session ignored me, again. B.) The session emailed everyone and told them essentially, where to look. In fact NO one in Vermont, from the church, visited my blogs until AFTER the session told them the INTERNET was the best place to look to discover the source of the controversy. (Elder Michael Breen acknowledged this to be a fact.) Additionally, the session through Andrew Selle, fully knowing my intent to send the letter out TWO DAYS in advance of sending that letter, only plead that it was "Christmas Time" in an effort to stop me, and offered more delays. Had this been against Church Law so to speak, then it was really an appropriate time to tell me that, but it was not said:

Dr. Andrew Selle - "It is a time when we invite those outside the Kingdom to taste the joys of knowing Christ. Do you not see that such a communication at this time would bring discouragement to the Body? and in so doing would undermine our evangelistic efforts? In the end, I'm not afraid for the church, yet I care for these concerns mentioned above, and I hope you will, too. At the least, I hope you will see reason and let this sit until the new year."

I have reviewed all communications with the session prior to my sending out the letter via email. No one warned me that it was a grave violation, only the pleading that I be nice at Christmas time. Not once has my inquiry about the topic coming up in session as Pastor Durham seemed to promise been answered. The session is covering up their neglect, and by doing so, making it worse.

UPDATE - One of the elders sent the following:

"I am writing on behalf of the Session of COPC.

While we find your answers to our email somewhat reassuring, we must repeat our request that you not attend any activity at Covenant Church until this matter can be satisfactorily resolved. We have several members who have indicated that they don't want to come if you are there. We believe our request of you is necessary for the peace of the church, and that worship may not be hindered.

Would you please confirm, at the earliest possible time, your intention to comply with our request not to attend Covenant Chruch [SIC] tomorrow. Thank you."

I then got a call from another elder whose talent seems to be experience with "Exit Interviews."

I've no sympathy with either in the current narrow context. I have heard from neither prior to this evening and it seems as if they are rotating from "unsuccessful" people in the interpersonal arena, to other ones in the hope that they'll match up better.

I've no respect for the request of nameless brothers or sister in Christ that won't come to church for fear that this post represents a threat of violence of some sort. I suggest if they are still reading at this late an hour, that they call the elders and withdraw their complaint. No such threat of violence exists.

In my conversation on the phone I was not kind. I would have to characterize my dealing with that elder as angry, something at this point, that I do not regret. I was lied to. It has been held up to me that continued exposure to the teaching and preaching at COPC would cause me to see the error of my ways. The elder calling me expressed that they thought there was "no hope" of changing my mind and thus no reason to meet with me and discuss it.

"Which is it" I wanted to know? Was I being placated with language of the faint hope of discussion or was I intractable and unable to change? Either view made the other offering a lie.

I asked WHAT argument was offered to me that was in the view of this elder, convincing. He could give me none.

I offered the two arguments extended by seminarian Stewart Lauer, and pointed to the fact that the word on which "Woody" (Stewart) hung his argument in fact meant quite a different thing, offered to prove it by examination, and this elder refused to look. He also would not discuss what it meant for a reformed seminarian to declare that Christ quoted scripture from the Old Testament, and then chose to change those words meanings and appealed to a sort of progressive revelation where God "Finds" meanings that didn't exist before.

His conclusion was that we weren't going to debate it. (From a how to fire advice article)

US News - "Don't enter into a debate. Your decision is final, and while you hope the employee understands it, the time for back-and-forth is over. Let the employee know your decision and then cover logistics, like returning keys and other property, the final paycheck, COBRA, etc.

Sound familiar?

How do you convince someone when you refuse to debate? How do you hold them responsible for correct teaching if you won't explain it? He also did not want to know that Luther or Augustine agreed with me. It seemed to make no difference that the father of the Reformation would not be welcomed as a member.

POST SCRIPT (December 27th) Not that faithfulness is measured by church attendance, or even that I would suggest genuine belief is signified by it either, but I had not missed church all year. That occurs to me as I am sitting here at home this morning, and not in church on the very last Sunday of 2009.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Further Testimony on Vermont's "Right to Marry"

The Reformation is officially a less than 500 year old movement. The representation of "Historic Christianity" as being a monogamous tradtion, or even supposing to go back before that into Judaism denies the existence of Holy Roman Emperor Charlemagne, the practice of polygyny among Anabaptists during the reformation and the practice of it by protestant hymn writers like Martin Madan.

Dr. Selle, purporting to represent the "growing" evangelical protestant movement in Vermont, offers the following:

"Marriage is a public legal lifelong commitment between a man and a woman, that's the historic Christian and the Evangelical Protestant view. The Government (this is the point), the Government has the important task to protect and defend and foster marriage."

I disagree, the government should perhaps be in the business of defending it, but it would best defend it by simply viewing marriage as a contract and making the least number of regulations with regard to it, leaving us free to contract ourselves for marriage. The government does not inspect contracts, unless they fail. When you get your car repossessed, arguably something that may do more damage to you socially than a divorce, the government does not get involved, most of the time. The bank shows up with your contract, declares that you are in default, cites it's remedies, and takes your car. Only if they seek a judgment to recover deficiency does the issue show up in court. Marriage should be this way as well. So should the unfortunate occurrence of divorce. There are plenty of contracts that are executed, completed and resolved without the involvement of the courts. The courts are not necessary.

"It is the fundamental building block of all societies and cultures. Since the reformation, the government has been seen as such a protector, and therefore we would not accept as a legitimate compromise, a state marriage as a generic genderless civil act which then churches and religious people can tack on tack on their own little religious ceremonies as an add on, that simply will not cut it with this constituency."

I in fact would love to see a generic relationship contract where we could in fact tack on our own little religious ceremonies or addendums.

Marriage in the Bible is not a religious ceremony. It is not a sacrament. A religious ceremony is certainly not ruled out, but it's not required and there is no example of it in scripture nor is there a suggestion there should be such a ceremony.

Marriage in the Bible is never said to be a civil act either. Again, there is no example of such an occurrence, nor is there a suggestion that there should be such a civil oversight function.

Marriage in the scriptures are acts engaged in by private parties. The only public thing about them is that everyone tends to know there is a marriage. The only legal writ associated with a marriage in the Bible is the act of it's dissolution, divorce. That is the only event connected to marriage said to be in writing. A writ of divorcement essentially became a woman's license to act on her own, having been set aside by her husband.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Vermont Gay Marriage, What's next? POLYGAMY?

I believe this reveals that our greatest concern in the churches, is not "Gay Marriage," but polygamy (polygyny). We would rather have homosexuals in our pews as "couples" than polygynists as heterosexuals.

Why do I say this? At least two people testifying here, one of whom I know, state; WHAT'S NEXT? POLYGAMY? and then go on to lump it with child sex and beastiality.

By ordering their words in this way they reveal that what worries them is Gay Marriage, but what worries them more? Polygamy.

More →

Sphere: Related Content