World wide Baptists are have a meeting in the Netherlands to discuss how to respond to homosexuality. OK. If I am a Baptist who has a more traditional understanding of Christian teaching on homosexuality and they decide to hold the meeting in the Netherlands close to Amsterdam, I am thinking the deck might be stacked. But that is just me.
Anyway, the World Wide Baptists may not agree on how to treat homosexuals but one thing that they can agree is that they will be much more civilized about their discussions than those crazy Anglicans. No no, they all agree that there is much to agree upon. Agreement all around on the point that they won’t be disagreeable.
With that said, let’s see how the discussion is going. First let’s hear from Scott Stearman, pastor of Kirkwood Baptist Church in suburban St. Louis.
“Our understanding of sexual relationships, of monogamy, polygamy and the status of women has changed radically since the Bible was first compiled in the 4th century,” he said.
“This change is not in spite of the Bible, but in fact because of the Bible,” Stearman continued. “For while there are many texts rooted in systems of injustice that we find abhorrent [such as slavery and gender inequality], the teachings of Jesus prompt us inexorably to another level of freedom.”
Hmmm. Ok. It has a nice Episcopalian ring to it. But still, it is something to think about. Let’s not be disagreeable about it. Now let’s hear from Ayo Gbode, pastor of Christ Baptist Church in Gbagada, Nigeria.
“The church can no longer stand aloof and believe that some angelic host from heaven will come and cleanse the earth of this gangrene of a behavior called homosexuality,” he said. “The church must respond, but her response must be ethical.”
…
Gbode contended that both testaments of Scripture unequivocally condemn all same-gender sexual relationships, that the church must oppose what he described as the “radical homosexual agenda” and that the church must “always be willing to assist [gays] overcome attraction to the same sex.”
…
Gbode added, “I stand by the traditional interpretation of the Scripture. To me the truth of the Scripture doesn’t change. It will never change — and it will never change even if our cultural standards change.”
No no. The Baptist experience will be much different from the Anglicans. They are much more agreeable.
August 13, 2009 at 5:21 am
The reason it is being held in the Netherlands is because this is where the Baptist movement started (by English Separatist/Nonconformist exiles), and this is the 400th anniversary of the Baptist tradition, with celebrations held recently in Amsterdam.
The BWA is certainly not going to accept homosexual marriage or ordination. Baptists in Europe are far more conservative compared to their mainline (State-sponsored) counterparts. And in America, even though the SBC is not part of the BWA, the other Baptist conventions are still rather conservative on such issues. The number of "open and affirming" Baptist churches are very, very small — as indicated by LGBT Baptist organization websites.
The Baptists have other problems, to be sure, but this is not one of them. We'll see whether time will tell otherwise.
August 13, 2009 at 8:29 am
What Baptist #1 failed to and should have added was "…since the Bible was first compiled in the 4th century BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH".
In the grand scheme, Baptists are to theology as Afghanistan is to scientific advancement in nuclear physics: irrelevant.
August 13, 2009 at 11:14 am
We should congratulate "Anonymous" on the most ignorant comment I've seen in a long time.
August 13, 2009 at 5:39 pm
You know, I'm not ultra-educated on Christology specifically (only one class, which neglected Anselm, Luther AND Calvin and Aquinas) but I have learned as a bit of common knowledge, from one of the textbooks (by a good Jesuit named Gerard O'Collins) that John Calvin did in fact do a decent amount of development of the notion of the different roles of Christ.
Your analogy is incomplete. To make it more complete it would have to regard theological development as analogous to scientific advancement.
Once it does so it becomes, well, wrong, as it is clear the assumption is that because the Church is not Catholic, it is (nay, its members are!) irrelevant to theological development. Unless you really meant Just The Baptists, in which case I guess we've got you wrong. But either way "irrelevant" might seem just a tad, just a tad, well, ignorant, as was said by the person before me.
August 13, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Wow. heretics of a feather I guess. No, you are both wrong. The Catholic (and pre-schism Orthodox church) are the SOLE fulfillments and arbitors of Christian theology. A Baptist, Calvinist, Mormon etc can say or think what he/she wants, but it is ABSOLUTELY irrelevant to theological truth, which is contained in the Catholic church.
If you don't like it, leave. There are enough pseudo-heretics, wannabes and modernists as it is.
August 13, 2009 at 6:52 pm
"was first compiled in the 4th century"
Hey a Baptist that least understands the Bible did not fall out of the sky. But he needs to go a bit farther. The same Church that was guided by the Holy Spirit to discern which books are scripture is the same Church teaching today.
August 13, 2009 at 7:18 pm
LOL. I just checked Kevin Davis' profile. Why anyone who reads the "Spirit of the Reformation" bible and puts Calvin and Zwingly as his heros comes to a Catholic blog is beyond me. Of course he thinks a comment belittling his petty little "reformists" or thier foul satan-inspired sects as ignorant. A heretic is a heretic is a heretic.
August 13, 2009 at 8:18 pm
Just a thought, but as Catholics we're supposed to have the Truth in its fullness. This doensn't mean that other denominations can't have some of the Truth that we do. It just means that they don't have the full picture. What needs to be considered when discerning if theological developments are "relevant" or "irrelevant" is whether or not they contradict what the Church teaches. So, while I'm not personally familiar with all of Calvin's Christological teachings/developments, there are certain ones we can dismiss out of hand as heretical, like predestination. (Predestination, to me, seems more like a misunderstanding on Calvin's part of how the Father views us through the lens of eternity- something which us timebound humans can have no full understanding of- it's like trying to see things naked eye in the UV spectrum, it just is, well, impossible for the very way in which we were made!)
So before we rudely dismiss or throw out ideas from our Protestant brothers and sisters, we should weigh what they are trying to say with what the Majesterium has handed down to us through the ages. If the idea doesn't fit with what the Church teaches, then throw their idea out. But at least have the good breeding to hear them out and not dismiss them simply because they're Protestant.
Feel free to burn me at the stake as a heretic…
August 13, 2009 at 8:25 pm
Why bother with any post by an 'Anonymous', really?
August 13, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Sarah – I know you are a convert, and fully repsect your opinion. But think of it this way: if they agreed with the truth then they wouldn't be heretics/Protestants, would they? So, obviously whatever truth their sects retained from the Catholic church (i.e. the Trinity) is still the truth. But they hold NO truth that is not contained in the Catholic church.
Here's an analogy; say you take a test and want to compare the answers you got right. Do you compare it against the answer key with all the correct answers or do you compare it with someone else's test you know for a fact will have wrong answers in it? If it's just to compare tests and strike up a conversation, then that's all good and well. But if it is to find out what the CORRECT answers were, then that person's test is irrelevant.
August 13, 2009 at 8:40 pm
Anon,
The only reason I haven't deleted your comments is that people had responded to you before I could get to it. This, however, should not been seen as license to continue to be rude. Continuation of same will get future comments deleted. The arbiter of what is rude is me. Any protest of my actions will be, as you say, irrelevant.
August 13, 2009 at 9:55 pm
Anon, to your point, theologically you're correct. However, out of love for our other fellow Christians it behooves us well to treat them kindly and engage them in discussion. Otherwise, how are we to welcome our long lost bretheren in Christ back into the fold? Simply lording over them with our theological and sacramental superiority makes us like the Pharisees. You remember how Christ viewed the Pharisees, right? Something about vipers and hypocrites…
St. Paul tells us about speaking without love. It's like noisy gongs going off. Even if you're noising off in the right key, it's still just noise without love.
You attract more flies with honey than with vinegar.
August 13, 2009 at 10:21 pm
Patrick – you are a sniveling racist hypocrite. Feel free to take this post and a) delete it or b) shove it as far and deep. That's how much I care or respect what you have to say on this or any topic.
August 13, 2009 at 10:27 pm
Ah I see. As it turns out Anon is not a Catholic at all but just impersonating one. In fact, he acts as a intolerant and rude jerk while claiming to be Catholic so as to impugn the rest of us.
Well then. Now that you have made that clear, have a nice day.
August 13, 2009 at 10:33 pm
Patrick,
According to my definitions of "sniveling", "racist", and "hypocrite", I have yet to see you or your brother come under any of those headings. I was an English major and I read a lot, so I'm pretty sure my definitions are correct.
If the anonymous troll cared to look up those words and provide cited references as proof for those claims, he/she/it is perfectly welcome to do so. Good luck.
Good for you for not just banning all comments because of anonymous troll pricks.
Have a nice day. 😉
August 13, 2009 at 11:18 pm
Nope, wrong again. This anonymous poster (and I assure you I am not all of them, but I am the only one who posted on this thread) is definitely Catholic. I follow the tactics of St Jerome and call a spade a spade. While Patrick may be convinced he has some divine powers and a god-given right to judge who is or is not Catholic, I can say wholeheartedly that he is wrong, and contrary to his petty little opinions does not speak for Catholicism.
You can continue to reach out to your heretic/pagan "lost bretheren" all you want. I will not accept any watered down version of the 2000+ year old faith at the expense of some wayward eccumenism. As for my comments about Patrick being a sniveling racist (specifically against blacks or hispanics) and a hypcrite, I stand by them. I've read enough of these threads to come to that conclusion.
August 14, 2009 at 1:02 am
Patrick is not sniveling.
August 14, 2009 at 3:41 am
Anon has yet to explain how a Protestant thinker can contribute to the development of a doctrine and still be declared "irrelevant."
As one of your separated brethren or material heretics or whatnot, I should ask that someone besides him tell me how. I am not claiming that Calvin discovered any truth that was not implicitly revealed, only claiming that he did–even according to some Catholics!–contribute to the legitimate development of doctrine. I happen to agree that he was wrong about foreordination (Predestination is a fully Catholic and Biblical teaching, so far as I know, so long as it is not Calvinistic; it is only the more Calvinistic formulations thereof that err). But I do not agree that everything said or believed by a Baptist, Calvinist, Methodist or any other sort of Protestant on the matter of theology is rendered irrelevant merely by their not being Catholic.
Anonymous should reveal himself or herself. This is not the depths of the internet, and anonymity should not be some kind of mask that the self-righteous can hide behind, especially when they make broad-brushed statements like anon does.
Am I probably just a tad self-righteous here? Heck yes, I am. But I like to think my self-righteousness is deflated some by my admitting to it.
To further illustrate my point about relevance: I would ask whether anything Chesterton wrote in his Anglican days is irrelevant to the truth. Recall that many of his greatest works, even some of his most Catholic works, were written before he was Catholic. The suggestion that somehow he becomes more relevant to the Truth simply by joining the Church is absurd. Truth is Truth, relevance is relevance, even if its source is imperfect. The line is not so clear as you, anon, would have it be!
Now pray tell, what is your name? Nobody else seems to be ashamed of what they are, even 'material heretics' like myself; why are you so afraid as to hide behind the mask of anonymity?
August 14, 2009 at 4:13 am
Ned: (to moe) You ugly, hate-filled man!
Moe: Hey, Hey, I may be ugly and hate-filled, but I- uh what was the third thing you said?
August 14, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Haha, wow! Thanks Simpsons Fan:). I think we all needed a laugh there.
I agree with DJ that although sources may be imperfect, they can still be considered to contain truth. The only caveat I have to that is that before someone (namely a Catholic someone) goes off reading non-canonical texts and seriously studying Protestant sources for information, they need to be deeply rooted in the Tradition and theology which has been handed down through the ages by the Majesterium. Hence my own self-acknowledged ignorance of much that is Protestant. As a newbie, I'm too inexperienced to be traipsing off into the muddied waters of Luther or Calvin. I could genuinely be led into heresy and get into trouble. That's why I haven't looked at Protestant doctrine much.
However, I don't think that kind of study by those well versed in the Faith in the name of ecumenism is wayward. Acceptance of things heretical by the Church in the name of unity cannot be- I won't have Her tarnished for anything. However, if we are to ever reunite and stand as one again as Jesus truly desired, we need to do our homework and start talking about what we can agree upon again. Perhaps by taking a lead on that, the Catholic church can then serve to correct the heresies that have clearly lead some denominations to the path of damnation. Not that we don't need to do some housecleaning of our own too…
Oh, and even though St. Jerome would call a spade a spade, I doubt very much that he would be proud to claim as a disciple a hate filled man! Anonymous, for staying cowardly anonymous, you have unmasked yourself as a legalistic and hateful Pharisee. Possesion of Truth in its fullness requires the courage to take responsibility for your words and the kindess to share it with others in love. Calling people names and putting your own holiness on a pedestal and the attitue of "others be damned that they're not as holy as me" shows a great immaturity. There's a difference between speaking truth hatefully and speaking truth lovingly. Both require honesty, but the latter requires humility. Please, before you speak next time, consider what you have to say in the context of saving a person's soul. There's a fine lne between condemming sin and condemming the sinner. Condemnation of people never got any one converted. Condemning the sin (heresy) is what we're called to do, but I think this time you've crossed the line into condemnation of wholesale groups of people as well as this blog's writers.
(Haha! Look at me, I'm being self-righteous too!!;)