Wednesday, March 26, 2014

World Vision: The Parable of the Gay Samaritan


On one occasion an expert in biblical ethics and Christian standards of sexual morality stood up to test World Vision. “Chief Exec,” he asked, “what must I do to sponsor an impoverished child in the proper Christian way that is honouring to God in accordance with His Word?”

“What is written on our website?” he replied. “How do you understand it?”

He answered, “‘Our Christian identity underpins everything that we do. Motivated by our faith, World Vision is committed to following the teaching and example of Jesus Christ in his identification with those who are poor, vulnerable or forgotten’; and, ‘Just 75p a day can free a child from the fear that poverty creates. Sponsorship keeps children protected and provides them with clean water, nutritious food, healthcare and education – everything a child needs to enjoy their childhood’.”

“You have answered correctly,” the Chief Exec replied. “Do this and the malnourished, diseased, trafficked and enslaved children of the world will live.”

But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked the Chief Exec, “But what if one of your employees is gay and in a civil partnership? You see, I read in Christianity Today that you've changed your conditions of employment and now accept married gay dudes, who aren't actually married, you know, in God's eyes, but you say that abstinence outside of marriage remains a condition of employment, so how does that work?”

In reply the Chief Exec said: “A six-year-old starving boy and eight-year-old trafficked girl were going down from Djibouti to Hargeysa in Somaliland, when they were attacked by fanatical militia. They stripped the starving boy of his clothes, beat him, and then raped and mutilated the genitalia of the girl, and went away, leaving them both half dead. Justin Taylor of The Gospel Coalition happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the children, he passed by on the other side. So too, Russell D. Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, when he saw the children lying there, he walked on by. And also Denny Burk, professor at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, when he came to the place and saw them, passed by on the other side.

But a gay guy in a civil partnership, as he travelled, came to where the children were; and when he saw them, he took pity on them. He went to them and gave them bread and water, and bandaged the girl to stop her bleeding, hugging them both to comfort them. Then he carried the weeping girl and put the boy on his own bicycle, and brought them to a World Vision shelter and took care of them. The next day he took out $100 and donated it to the charity. ‘We must look after them,’ he said, ‘and I'm happy to reimburse World Vision for any lost sponsorship you may have as a result of your employing me.’

“Which of these do you think was a neighbour to the children who fell into the hands of the fanatical militia?”

The expert in biblical ethics and Christian standards of sexual morality replied, “The one who showed compassion and sponsored them.”

Jesus told him in his heart, “Go and do likewise.”

388 Comments:

Blogger Jonathan James | Associate Solicitor said...

If a charity adopts a policy of never employing sinners, who can it employ? God chooses to use sinners to carry out his works. Whether or not homosexual behaviour is sinful is entirely irrelevant - all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God; there is none righteous, no not one. In order to minister the love of God, you have to make use of sinners or else the love of God will remain entirely abstract and powerless.

26 March 2014 at 09:46  
Blogger Paul Huxley said...

You realise that Justin Taylor has adopted multiple orphans? Hardly the most fitting to cast as the bad guy in this.

Yes, your Grace is right that people can still give through World Vision and other charities. But that doesn't mean that their position is anything more than a capitulation.

Compassion and conviction are not enemies.

26 March 2014 at 09:46  
Blogger Paul Huxley said...

Jonathan (above) - but World Vision sees itself as a Christian missions organisation that, as such, employs practising Christians only. The problem here is that openly unrepentant professing Christians are being told they have no need to repent.

If they employed non-Christians generally to carry out their mission, that's another thing. It might even be a good way of going about it. It's the muddled confusion about sexuality that is the problem here.

26 March 2014 at 09:49  
Blogger revjgoode said...

A major factor in me becoming a Christian and now an Anglican priest was through the support of a work colleague who was both a Christian and gay.
It is not for me to judge him or the quality of his love, all I know that it was integral to who he was. Indeed, he was a lovely person

26 March 2014 at 09:59  
Blogger IanCad said...

YG,

Sometimes it is best not to tell people what they do not want hear.
This will truly set the cat among the pigeons.

It is about 10am here.

At about noon our time Americans will start sitting down for their breakfasts.
And so, for the next several more hours, this will progress through the time zones.

I shall predict, this post will elicit the greatest response of any that you have so far published.

Perhaps the Dawkins one of a few years back will still hold that honour after the dust has settled.

This is going to ruffle many, many feathers.
Hold on to your hats!!

26 March 2014 at 10:14  
Blogger Len said...

Jesus showed compassion for the sick the hurting and the dying,But as he told the woman caught in the act of adultery (who`s life he undoubtedly saved !)
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.

Jesus showed compassion for people but never condoned their sin..

26 March 2014 at 10:29  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Happy Jack believes those offering love and compassion through a Christian organisation are, first and foremost, representatives of the love of Christ. Surely they should attempt to model Jesus. Not only are they bringing relief to the suffering, they are also bringing the Gospel message.

An active homosexual in a relationship affirming and reinforcing sin is different to this nonsensical line that keeps getting peddled: "we are all sinners" and "who are we to judge". If the person is attempting to put this serious sin behind them, this is different. Here, the behaviour is considered non-sinful.

How about an unrepentant paedophile being employed who's sexual *orientation* is children? Or a person who sees nothing wrong in stealing, murder or adultery?

Jack doesn't donate to this charity. If he did, he would no longer do so.

26 March 2014 at 10:36  
Blogger Nick said...

There is a profoundly qualitative difference between individual sin (we are ALL in that category) and the institutionalisation of sin through formal policy and law.The former is inevitable but be we at least struggle to overcome it if the current culture frowns on it. The latter is an official green light that sends the message "It's OK, anything goes, there's no price to pay for it.

I suspect that World Vision, like most other institutions, is fearing the gay backlash if it doesn't change it's employment policy. They should remind themselves that "Fear of man will prove to be a snare".

26 March 2014 at 10:41  
Blogger Malcolm Smith said...

This parable seems to be an example of bait-and-switch. We have the expert in biblical ethics asking a question which ends, "How does that work?"
The Chief Exec then provides a parable, and asks: "Which of these do you think was a neighbour...?"
A good question, but it doesn't actually answer the original question. At least, when Jesus was asked, "Who is my neighbour?", He provided a parable which answered it.

26 March 2014 at 10:51  
Blogger Guy Jones said...

I perceive the problem for World Vision to be that is values mammon before God's mission. It suits the organisation to maintain its status as a charity before it carries out the work God has called it to do. This is the dilemma of Christian charities: take the governments shilling and you have to play the governments tune and implement the agenda.

In the future true churches and christian organisations will not be registered charities.

26 March 2014 at 10:56  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

Also, perhaps, Your Grace, the parable of the two brothers in Matt 21:

Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.

26 March 2014 at 11:27  
Blogger Busy Mum said...

Is an organisation with employees a charity or a business?

A lot of so-called charity is totally misguided in that, by aiming to eliminate poverty, it refuses to believe Jesus' words; "For the poor ye have always with you" (John 12)

Will World Vision allow its Christian employees exhort its practising gay employees to repentance?

That would be interesting; gay WV employee sues Christian WV employee for homophobia.

26 March 2014 at 11:43  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Len @ 10.29 already has the point.

Of course Jesus enjoyed the company of sinners, since we are all imperfect. Indeed he did not condemn them, as people. But neither did he accept their wrong doings. His approach of 'love the sinner, reject the sins", is very clearly illustrated at John 8 : 1 - 11.
We see a similar approach at Jacob's Well, John 4 : 1 - 30.

Incidentally, there is a fascinating, clear exposition of the need to face up to our rejection of Biblical standards with the letter from an African Anglican Archbishop, at anglicanmainstream today. It will not be universally received with joy throughout the Anglican Communion, especially by many in the mother Church !

The problem facing this multi-denominational charity is, does it do it's own theology and pastoral policy, even against the conclusions reached by some of its member Churches, or stick to its "core business " of being a conduit for aid ? Should the enabler address maters of doctrine, or in this case, the behaviour of Christians ? That's the question that faced their CEO. I suspect that in the short term separating the practical delivery of services from the ethics, the morality will succeed, and be applauded by many, but that in the longer term it may cause deeper problems. Maybe this illustrates the inherent tensions in trying to work with a very wide range of beliefs.

26 March 2014 at 11:53  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

Today’s parable assumes that Messrs Taylor, Moore and Burk, by dint of defending the Christian understanding of marriage, would leave the tiny tots to perish. Rather unlikely, I think.

26 March 2014 at 12:02  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

26 March 2014 at 12:21  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This parallel doesn't work. Or perhaps it works too well. For any illicit behavior could be substituted and the argument would hold. And that is the fundamental flaw. Adulterer. Thief. Murderer. The son who sleeps with his father's wife. They would all likewise fit the paradigm.

The only way this modified parable works is if bring a Samaritan is equivalent to being a homosexual. Being a Samaritan is a fact of parentage. Being a Samaritan is not an illicit behavior originating in an illicit desire. The homosexual might say "I perceive my desire to be both unchosen and immutable" but that does not validate the desire. Nor does it justify acting on the desire. Nor does it establish that homosexuality is a separate human ontology. It is nothing but an unverifiable perception that says nothing about the morality of the associated behavior.

All people can do objectively good things (in a temporal sense.) The good they do can never justify the evil that they do. Neither is it reason to set aside discernment. But it is getting costly to morally object to homosexuality in Western culture. And people are looking for reasons to compromise.

carl

26 March 2014 at 12:24  
Blogger Rasher Bacon said...

Your Grace

Every now and then, you seem to sink your ancient teeth into fellow Christians with the sort of ferocity that Anne Askew knew and felt.

May I ask you to pause, even if only to get a better purchase with your next bite?

It seems to be a well considered piece by Justin Taylor - the issue for some is whether they are giving through a Christian organisation or what becomes a secular one, like others set up by Christians. Their definition of following Christ does not include some things that they see as being in opposition to Christ's teaching - as such equivalent to the bandits in your parable.

That's their view, and Justin's clear desire is that the children shouldn't suffer from this change (and it is a change) - particularly where a long term sponsorship commitments have been made.

Am I being obtuse?

26 March 2014 at 12:25  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Looking at the 'Christianity Today' interview, it says that "Abstinence outside of marriage remains a rule."

As an employee, you can have sex if you're married; not if you're not.

World vision's policy has not changed. The definition of marriage has.

That's the problem.

26 March 2014 at 12:55  
Blogger Pam Manners said...

Happy Jack -- first off...why do you speak like Bob Dole and Elmo? You know, in the third person?

And so...if you DID donate to this charity, which is sponsoring children in dire need, you would therefore cut this child off at the knees, so to speak, by dropping your sponsorship.

Would Happy Jack then be able to look at himself in the mirror daily and be able to sleep soundly at night?

26 March 2014 at 12:58  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

David Hussell

The danger is that the core business of delivering aid will become the only business, and the organization will lose its spiritual purpose. Much like the road followed by Christian Children's Fund. This is what the Crowd demanded of Jesus - to be a Bread king. "Give us what we want to satisfy our daily needs." But that is not what He principally came to give.

Decisions like this give evidence of a weakening commitment to orthodoxy. It bodes ill for the future.

carl

26 March 2014 at 13:01  
Blogger Olivia Faix said...

Well actually that's exactly what they said they would do over at The Gospel Coalition blog.

26 March 2014 at 13:14  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

David Hussell

Shalom, David. How did the trip go? I look forward to hearing your views and comments.

26 March 2014 at 13:29  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

I don't know all the facts but suspect that our old friends Non Sequitur, Miss D Point, Mr Bait and his uncivil partner Mr Switch may be involved.

I prefer to channel my giving through agencies that share my faith position and no doubt secularists and others do so as well. For example I support TEAR fund not CAFOD. Perhaps the Catholics here do the opposite? I wish CAFOD well, I just choose to fund a Protestant charity instead.

I hope the anti Christian bigots are not going to blow this up.

26 March 2014 at 13:29  
Blogger Mark said...

Shame on you sir! As if the named gentlemen and those upset with World Vision do not help the poor through other agencies and means.

I am removing your site from my blog's links. And I doubt I will be back. Good day.

26 March 2014 at 13:33  
Blogger The Explorer said...

In the past the Law of God and the Law of the Land tended to coincide: at least in sexual matters.

Now, increasingly, they do not.

That creates a tension; since Christians, as a generality, would like to be law-abiding citizens.

26 March 2014 at 13:37  
Blogger William Lewis said...

The Explorer @ 12:55

Good point. This is a problem created by the redefinition of marriage. Something that the advocates of SSM will be pretty happy about one thinks.

Having said that, I understand the position taken by World Vision that their primary focus is to help the poor, not to finesse policy in an ever hostile world.

26 March 2014 at 13:39  
Blogger Christian Salafia said...

Umm.. "For the poor ye have always with you" (John 12), doesn't mean there will always be poverty. It means our mission as Christians is stand in solidarity with and care for the poor, and not kowtow to the power of empire. When you walk away from the poor, as some of those who have left WV have done, they cease to be Christ followers.

26 March 2014 at 13:48  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Carl Jacobs @ 13.01

I agree. Without adherence to orthodoxy both in belief and practices the "good works" will eventually falter, I suspect.

And congratulations for your excellent, clear analysis at 12.24.

26 March 2014 at 13:50  
Blogger dav phi said...

This is a parody of Scripture, and as such is a device that crouches in the guise of scripture without having the authority of the Lord behind it.

26 March 2014 at 13:59  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Old Ernst sees the problem quite differently to the post...Can an organisation be classed as Christian that goes against Biblical definitions to suit a current liberal position within current secular legislation and that puts a nice spin on the PR aims to generate money, irrelevant of the tenets of the Faith??.

World Vision itself has form about hiring and firing those that are deemed 'Christian' by it or not?...http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/24/court-rules-world-vision-can-require-employees-to-be-christians/ and seeked a ruling justifying the hiring and firing of it's employees.

If abortion is against God's premise that life is sacred, then how can you square the circle that some 'Christians' agree with abortion.

It then becomes the job of saying that being a good and kind person is irrelevant to the question, 'What is it to be truthfully defined as a Christian'..Is it solely therefore about good deeds and your relationship to the poor..If so then other religions do likewise.

That some class themselves as christian and want to do good things is admirable but they must firstly know what being a Christian means and what you must believe to be one. Obedience to specific moral judgments of God is paramount and human emotions must not be used to determine God's viewpoint or cloud the issue.

The question is the crux of the dispute, the circle that refuses to be squared!!

Blofeld

26 March 2014 at 14:06  
Blogger Martin said...

Tell me, how can a organisation that condones sin be considered a Christian organisation?

Is World Vision's vision so narrow that it cannot see that condoning sin not only casts into question their whole ethos, not only harms those who it should be pointing to repentance but also makes it impossible for Christians to support them with a clear conscience.

Christians support Christian organisations because of their Christian ethos. That is why I would never support Christian Aid or Oxfam.

I'm afraid your blog is stupid and irresponsible. You have been offensive to your fellow believers and shown a lack of discernment.

26 March 2014 at 14:09  
Blogger The Explorer said...

A year or so ago, I cited an issue in California re medical insurance.

A couple who failed to conceive after a year of regular sex would be eligible, via medical insurance, for in vitro/third party etc.

It is illegal to discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation.

A same sex-couple who had failed to conceive after a year of regular sex would be eligible, via medical insurance, for in vitro/third party etc.

A similar sort of situation pertains here.

(Medical insurance, incidentally, identified an anomaly. Anyone able to spot it?)

26 March 2014 at 14:12  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Christian Salafia stated...

Umm.. "For the poor ye have always with you" (John 12), doesn't mean there will always be poverty.(Until Christ returns there will ALWAYS be poverty..Do show from scripture where this is NOT the case, past present and future towards His return, my lad. There are many reasons for poverty, including persecution and the world will persecute others until He returns!)

It means our mission as Christians is stand in solidarity with and care for the poor (Indeed, fellow), and not kowtow to the power of empire (Absolutely, who could disagree?). When you walk away from the poor, as some of those who have left WV have done, they cease to be Christ followers (Strewth...A 'touch not mine anointed' statement there, to go contrary to criticism seen most used profusely by those name it and claim it sorts, to shame criticizers?. We are saying that as we by and large have limited funds to give to the charities of OUR choice, that WV has NOT got a divine right to those funds...Are we not allowed to dispense them as we feel God sees fit and lets us to do in good conscience as Christians to those we agree with holding similar views?).

Blofeld

26 March 2014 at 14:15  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Uncle Brian @ 13.29,

Shalom, Brian.

Thank you for asking. the trip was enormously successful for me and the party. The leadership was superb, from both a senior Anglican
Bishop with deep experience of Israel since working in a kibbutz as a young man many decades ago, and an excellent committed Christian (of the Catholic persuasion) guide with deep
theological knowledge, degrees etc.

We covered much ground in our ten packed long days, visiting many sites, each visit being always preceded by scriptural readings, prayers and then a short service or hymn singing. We took our own musicians. The hospitality of all those who "owned" the sites, usually Catholic or some form of Orthodox or Marionnite order, to us as Anglicans, was first class, being allowed to conduct services in their churches and shrines etc - ecumenicism in action !
We visited local groups of Anglican Christians, shared fellowship with them, contributing to their charities and equally to ones run by Catholic groups, nuns, caring for orphans for example.

We travelled to all the key sites, including the ones that you kindly commented upon beforehand, and into the heart of the West Bank, almost all over in fact.
The weather was cold, colder than here often, but we didn't notice. The beer or wine with our evening meal was good, as was the food generally. Traders gave lower prices for US dollars than Shekels, a fact I quickly spotted !
I don't buy into the standard C of E line on the political positions, and I felt the tension in the eyes of the very young Israeli soldiers as much as the frustration felt by the Palestinians, and that's a long story.
Most of us were greatly spiritually enriched. I now read Scripture often picturing the relevant site in my head. As a Geographer, originally, that rooting in the land, matters much to me. When I finish my current theology degree course, soon now, I shall write up my scribbled notes and link them to my many photos.

Best wishes, to you, Brian.

26 March 2014 at 14:16  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Pam Manners, Happy Jack speaks the way he choses.

And Jack does not 'do' emotional blackmail. He would give his money to a Christian charity that actually followed the word of God. He would do nothing to support this perversion of marriage. And if any child suffers as a consequence, then WV are responsible, not those donors who withdraw their support.

26 March 2014 at 14:30  
Blogger 45minutewarning said...

What WV are doing is what churches are doing in most places; finding themselves unwilling to swim against the cultural tide, so they drift with it. It's like a ship's pilot taking direction from the captain. The blind leading the blind.

They could swim against the tide if they wanted to. Examples of resistance include churches in Africa, and the recent St Patricks Day parade in Boston, where some have stood up for a principle and defied the will of the gay lobby

The name "World Vision" looks ironically suitable for an organisation that appears to be seeing things through the eyes of the world instead of its professed religion.

26 March 2014 at 14:34  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Mark

A bit of an over-reaction. You don't judge a weblog by one post any more than you judge a commenter by one comment. Anyways. Thus is a weblog and not a church. Its purpose is to push ideas. You won't agree with everything, but that's a given with the medium. So if you think he is wrong, then say why. Don't just stomp off. That does no one any good.

And I should say that Archbishop Cranmer has always struck me as being doctrinally soft in some areas. I don't expect him to produce a steady stream of sound doctrine. You have to properly set your expectations.

carl

26 March 2014 at 14:37  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

I can accept the view that a starving kid in Africa probably doesn't give a damn who is giving him the food... but by the same token, the Christians here may as well be giving their aid to secular charities (or Jewish ones for that matter), if outcome is the primary purpose of giving to this particular charity. In other words, I presume that Christians give to this charity, not just because it does good, but because of the particular Christian emphasis (beliefs? missionary work?) that would doubtless be at the core of such a charity.

26 March 2014 at 14:46  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Happy Jack as 'Bob Dole'? Well, as the old expression goes, we're not in Kansas anymore...

26 March 2014 at 14:50  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Uncle Brian,

Israel Pilgrimage.

One more thing to mention, for you and everyone, and a cheerful one at that. It was deeply heartening to see how many pilgrims there were from the "new Christian" countries, China, Japan, India and many parts of Africa. The Africans tended to form marching choirs as they approached holy sites, which was excellent. In one church, after we had sung particularly well (no thanks to me although I do my best) a group of Japanese pilgrims gave us an ovation, which was lovely.
My point is that there are rather a lot of us Christians now, worldwide, committed enough to pay out to travel long distances to visit The Lord's homeland. The Church is burgeoning in these places which should give great encouragement to the Brits, North Americans and others such as yourself in Brazil, who visit this place.



26 March 2014 at 14:51  
Blogger Mark said...

Carl, your comment is well taken. But in so smearing good Christian gentlemen like Justin Taylor by name even, the ashes imposter has crossed the line.

26 March 2014 at 14:58  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Mark..

That is more or less what Bloody Mary said.

Farewell.

26 March 2014 at 15:05  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ carl jacobs (12:24)—Being a Samaritan is a fact of parentage

Homosexuality may also be a fact of parentage/genetic inheritance. The distinctive appearance of the hypothalamus of homosexual men was noted over 20 years ago and, more recently, a study found that the symmetry of the brain differed by gender and sexuality. It would be a cold-hearted God who implanted homosexual desire and then ruled its expression illicit.

26 March 2014 at 15:10  
Blogger richardhj said...

Replace "gay guy" with "Marie Stopes fundraiser" or as others have said above "murderer". Or indeed "cohabiting man and woman", whom it would appear remain banned despite this change. (Explorer 12:55 above)

The abuse of the parable is unacceptable.

26 March 2014 at 15:14  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Mark,

Appreciate that Texans shoot from the hip, but most of the ones I know personally, don't sulk off if they disagree with something, but enjoin the argument!

26 March 2014 at 15:15  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

26 March 2014 at 15:23  
Blogger Ars Hendrik said...

'For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

'They also will answer, "Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?"

‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”


Nothing here about the sexuality of the person who provided care, only that care was provided.

The starving child needs food, the thirsty child water, the sick child medicine – to provide these is a Christian duty – the first Christian duty – all other obsessions, about sexual mores or otherwise, are utterly beside the point.

Does WV save the lives of the entirely innocent? Yes. Does it do this in the name of Christ? Yes.

The idea that a 'gay marriage' is more offensive to God than a child tortured by hunger or disease is absurd.

26 March 2014 at 15:25  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

David Hussell

David, that makes two of us. I’m glad you found your trip as rewarding and enjoyable as I did mine, a few years ago. If there’s any way I can have a look at your photographs on line, I’d be most interested. Also, of course, to read the rest of what you have to say, when you get round to it.

On the subject of tension between the Israeli troops and the local civilian population in the Palestinian territories, it’s not always as tense as all that. You may have seen this news item from a few months ago. (This is from the Jerusalem Post, but it was in other papers as well.) I particularly like the bit about the “pro-Hamas tendencies”.

IDF soldiers 'abandon patrol to party with Palestinians in Hebron club'

The Israel Defense Forces has launched an investigation after Israeli soldiers from the elite Givati Brigade were captured on camera dancing with young Palestinians at a club in the Jabara neighborhood of Hebron, Channel 2 reported Wednesday.

According to the report, the soldiers entered the club while on patrol on Monday, after hearing the song Gangnam Style by Psy coming from the building.

The footage aired by Channel 2 purportedly shows a soldier in IDF uniform, fully armed, sitting on the shoulders of a Palestinian club-goer, even clasping hands with another man at the club.

Channel 2 said that the club was frequented by members of a Palestinian clan known for its pro-Hamas tendencies.

The army has suspended the soldiers from duty until the end of the investigation, the television station said, quoting the IDF as saying that it views the incident with utmost gravity.

26 March 2014 at 15:26  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Uncle Brian,

Just don't google search 'IDF female soldiers dance around rifle' as I'm not sure your heart would take the sight... ahem.

26 March 2014 at 15:31  
Blogger Rasher Bacon said...

Apologies, Your Grace - I may have been confusing you with Bishop Gardiner in my earlier comment..

Easily done!

26 March 2014 at 15:34  
Blogger Nick said...

Ars

"The idea that a 'gay marriage' is more offensive to God than a child tortured by hunger or disease is absurd"

Yoiu are right there but there is a difference in context. Nobody is campaigning to legitamise child torture, and we are free to criticise it without being called bigots. It seems there are still some things which are unacceptable for a healthy society.

In contrast, gay "marraige" is being lauded as social progress and those who don't agree are villified and punished for their views. So the proponents of gay mariage add to their sin those of bigotry, intolerance, and hatred.

26 March 2014 at 16:04  
Blogger Ian Paul said...

To name individuals and suggest they are walking by on the other side is really hideous. I hope you never accuse anyone else of being judgemental.

I offer my own reflections on this here http://www.psephizo.com/life-ministry/a-lot-of-nonsense-about-world-vision/

26 March 2014 at 16:08  
Blogger Meledor said...

"Who wants to be the Levite who refuses to cross the road to help the sick and dying just because a gay couple wants to help the battered man too? Ouch. Sounds terrible. But the argument is much less than meets the eye...."

See Kevin DeYoung's response to HG's re-working of the Good Samaritan.

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2014/03/26/two-more-thoughts-on-the-world-vision-controversy/

Also well worth reading his earlier comments on the World Vision decision linked in the first sentence.

"The good news of the gospel is that the sin of exchanging natural relations for those that are contrary to nature, like every other sin, can be forgiven, and that homosexual offenders, like every other kind of sinner, of which I am profoundly one, can receive grace, mercy, and peace in the name of Jesus Christ and be justified, sanctified and glorified by the power of God. To treat these straightforward truths as beyond the ability of confident hermeneutical inquiry or altogether as a thing indifferent is not to unify Christians in the gospel but to sacrifice the gospel for a togetherness that will not hold and a shortsighted vision that is sure to fail."

26 March 2014 at 16:17  
Blogger Roy said...

Should a Christian charity employ people who are obese? Such people are obviously greedy and have little self-discipline. In most cases you cannot tell what sins a person has committed simply by looking at him or her, but in the case of the obese you can identify at least one of their sins.

Starving children may not care if food reaches them thanks to the work of obese people but shouldn't any Christian charity set an example by refusing to employ such people?

26 March 2014 at 16:33  
Blogger IanCad said...

Got started on a post--wasn't getting it right.

Took a break, read the new comments and saw that Ars Hendrick could put into fewer words what I was trying to say.

Priorities, priorities, priorities.

26 March 2014 at 16:44  
Blogger Flossie said...

Your Grace, I don't think any of your communicants would be so crass as to imagine that people attracted to others of the same sex are incapable of kind deeds and heroic actions. That is quite a hurtful suggestion.

I myself lost a trusted and valued friend and mentor to AIDS many years ago, followed later by his long-term partner, and was devastated by his lingering and horrible death. My mother was cared for in her final months by a wonderful and very camp gay nurse, who brightened everybody's life.

We are perfectly capable of loving the sinner while hating the sin, but this is not what World Vision has done. They have confirmed the sin, and are pretending that it will unify, but it can only divide further.

26 March 2014 at 16:49  
Blogger richardhj said...

Ars and Ian

If the need for people to work at these agencies is so great, why do they not allow cohabiting M/F couples?

26 March 2014 at 16:51  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

David Kavanagh said...

Uncle Brian,

Just don't google search 'IDF female soldiers dance around rifle' as I'm not sure your heart would take the sight... ahem.

26 March 2014 15:31


"An army marches on its stomach." Poor old Napoleon. If he'd lived to see this video, he'd have realised his mistake.

Thank you, David!

26 March 2014 at 17:03  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Ars @ 15:25

It's an interesting post on a difficult faith/works biblical passage.

If you love God, it should follow that you will love your neighbour.

But if you love your neighbour, does it mean that you love God?

I know charitable atheists who would take grave exception to the very idea.

26 March 2014 at 17:11  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

revjgoode: "It is not for me to judge him or the quality of his love, all I know that it was integral to who he was. Indeed, he was a lovely person"

He sounds just like me! :)

26 March 2014 at 17:22  
Blogger IanCad said...

richardhj

Therefore there is an inconsistency; I agree.

The goal of WV is to help the helpless.

Perhaps those without the camp are doing what those within are neglecting.

26 March 2014 at 17:30  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Uncle Brian @ 15.26,

I'm glad that your earlier trip was also rewarding. Photos etc available. OK, I 'll do my best. My IT skills improve slowly but I usually succeed eventually, and with more time available soon and a new laptop, I might succeed.

26 March 2014 at 17:39  
Blogger richardhj said...

Ian

It is more than an inconsistency. It is a positive discrimination in favour of people in "gay marriages" against some other sections of society
If they didn't discriminate at all, which to be fair was what I assumed (and I have been a sponsor for over 10 years) then I would probably have no problem with it, certainly less so.

I have recently written a fairly large cheque in remembrance of a deceased friend to the local hospice. I happen to know that the guys who do all the bookkeeping at the hospice are gay, but it is a good cause, is available to the whole community and I certainly do not object.

In this case however, WV appear to be saying, we choose to discriminate in favour of those who are married. Fine, or good, so far. But then they say, "gay marriage" is as good as any other marriage. That is wrong.
They take a moral stance and then get it totally wrong.

That is the major reason why I believe this to be so bad.

26 March 2014 at 17:50  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

" ... ‘and I'm happy to reimburse World Vision for any lost sponsorship you may have as a result of your employing me.’"

Happy Jack doubts this bit very much.

26 March 2014 at 17:54  
Blogger Pam Manners said...

Exactly. Well said, Christian.

26 March 2014 at 17:57  
Blogger MochaMacho said...

If you are using Leviticus to assert that homosexuality is a sin worthy of cutting the sinner off from the fellowship, then I do hope that you are not wearing blended textiles, that you are stoning to death your teenage children when they talk back to you, that you are forgiving all debts every 49 years, that you are excluding from fellowship anyone who cheats their customers with scales that read to the merchant's advantage. If you are using the writings of Saint Paul, then your wife had better be veiled and silent during church services, and you yourself had better be the husband of one wife and willing to die to protect your wife as Christ gave up his life for the Church. We ignore HUGE areas of the old law for our own convenience, and we ignore much of what Paul taught because it doesn't match our own cultural imperatives.
With 35 to 48% of all heterosexual Christian marriages ending in divorce, I would postulate that homosexual marriages are no more threat to the sanctity of marriage than Christianity is. You want to talk about the sin of homosexuality? Show me the unshaven locks dangling by your jaw and we'll talk.

26 March 2014 at 18:13  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Gentlemen – the answer is to place yourself on a higher plane, as this man regularly does. Our Christian concern for the welfare of children is paramount, and well above the rest of the ills we have to put up with. Besides, people deserve privacy at work, assuming privacy is something they value by not making a campaigning issue themselves over their personal ‘arrangements’, let’s call them.

Now, with that comes this statement. There is no law on this man’s earth that can make him recognise same sex unions as marriage. There never will be. One would even say that if ever he was introduced to, say, two men (with those peculiar semi-forced gay smiles which seems to be de rigueur these days to signify homo happiness), claiming to be ‘married’, he would denounce them there and then as frauds in the sight of God.

The Inspector looks to history for his inspiration on his stance. Such as when Henry VIII broke with Rome and informed everyone that they were no longer members of the Roman church, but of an English one - “No we are NOT !!!” said the best of them…

26 March 2014 at 18:23  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...



Johnny Rottenborough. “It would be a cold-hearted God who implanted homosexual desire and then ruled its expression illicit”

Absolutely Sir ! An individual’s sexual orientation has no more significance to other Christians, or anybody else come to that, than whether he keeps a cat. But look at what we have now:

Since the arrival of emails and the net, we have a well defined and unified cult on our hands. A cult that would corrupt our young, especially male, in a similar manner as the socialist cult has done. In many ways the homosexual way is far worse. It seeks to portray a lifestyle that has no happy endings, and is currently aping marriage to try to validate an otherwise-the-case portrayal – some hope, what ! In extremis, the lifestyle is inherently vile, consisting of illicit drug taking, sexual licentiousness, infidelity, pornography, disease, mental instability and the ever present threat of violence, from their own or outsiders. Oh yes, it’s injurious to the surprisingly delicate constructions that are the anus and rectum. Mustn’t forget to state that painful and bloody fact. Plus an obvious and increased bent towards paedophilia. That concludes the case for the prosecution. (Do you think the Inspector has been too hard on them – do say…)

Consequently, we HAVE to fight this cult. Save them from themselves, you see, and prevent their increasing influence in society in general. A tall order as the thing has powerful friends in government, though only God knows why. In doing so, perhaps it might be an idea to revive two old terms from a few decades back which they used then to describe themselves, to wit, ‘Scene’ gays and ‘Non Scene’. One presumes their militants deprecated these terms as the way they see it, EVERY homosexual is automatically ‘Scene’ these days.

‘Non Scene’ could be used for those of the orientation who want nothing to do with the militants. One suspects they well outnumber all the rest by many times.





26 March 2014 at 18:24  
Blogger The Explorer said...

MocaMacho:

Going out shortly, and not sure when I'll be back.

However, start by outlining your understanding of the difference between the moral law and the ceremonial law, and hopefully someone else will be able to continue the discussion.

26 March 2014 at 18:31  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Uncle Brian,

Glad you didn't have too much of a heart racing experience! I only came across that via an employee, who when challenged about this meekly said he was 'trying to research Judaism'. I forgave and pointed him to direction of Aish.com....

26 March 2014 at 18:34  
Blogger IanCad said...

richardhj,

Understood and accepted.

26 March 2014 at 18:36  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Inspector:

Wouldn't it be a cold-hearted God who implanted adulterous or paedophilic desire, and then ruled the expression illicit?

Is God the source of the desires, or are other explanations possible?

As I said above, out for the evening. Hope others can continue the discussion.

26 March 2014 at 18:37  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

Martin at 14.09

I channel most of my giving through explicitly Christian charities, relief and development ones and evangelising ones too, but like to support secular charities like Medecins sans Frontieres sometimes. For example, in places like Syria where Christians charities are unacceptable. Also I know for a fact that many Christians are involved in these charities. I like Medicins sans Frontieres.

I don't think our Lord minds us supporting 'men and women of good will' who are not explicitly believers.

But there is another point here, and its a difficult one. What happens when Christian charities who have taken government money come under pressure from 'Big Gay' to bow to their idol or lose funding and commissioning? Compromise or conflict? We can see from some of the posts here how easy it is to stir up emotional 'Call yourself a Christian-homophobia beats charity in your book...all a load of hypocrites...etc'.

Another nasty little propaganda trap.

I don't have to worry about World Vision as they are pone of the several thousand Christian charities that I don't support. But I do worry as the tentacles of the Gaystapo (and I don't mean DanJo whom I am persuaded is a libertarian) stray ever further and deeper into men and women's souls, demanding compliance.

How long before charitable status depends on signing a diversities and equalities statement drafted by Stonewall? Don't try to tell me they aren't already working on it.

26 March 2014 at 18:48  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Explorer, one is not prepared to condemn the homosexual outright. It is, shall we say, a regrettable condition they have. Just as the adulterer has a regrettable nature. But the adulterer does not seek to impose on society that adultery is a valid lifestyle. It’s all a question of influence on society, you see. The homosexual influence being a very bad one indeed. They should take the lead out of other unfortunates who are around, such as men who feel the urge to be whipped, and that is to keep it to themselves...

26 March 2014 at 18:57  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Explorer,,the science is uncertain on sexuality and a whole host of other human attributes. But what relevance is it? Jack recalls that God has told us He gives people enough grace to overcome whatever trials they face in life.

If homosexuality is sinful, and Jack's understanding is that it is, then the desire has to be resisted and not sanctioned. To be a Christian and then *marry* is the equivalent of cocking a snoot at God. It's putting one's own desire above love of God. And, just to remind some folk here, Jesus told us love of God is the first and greatest commandment.

26 March 2014 at 19:00  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Oh dear oh goodness! The Church is obsessed by homosexuality and blind to the threat of Mohammedism, which it welcomes with open arms in the delusion that it is warm and fluffy. Gay people do indeed risk their immortal souls, but the Mohammedans wield the scimitar in the here and now. The Lord can worry about the souls and final judgement, so perhaps we should worry about being murdered in our beds. Just a thought.

26 March 2014 at 19:20  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Inspector, Happy Jack isn't too sure about this: "But the adulterer does not seek to impose on society that adultery is a valid lifestyle."

What about divorce and remarriage on demand? From a Christian perspective, this is institutionalised adultery.

26 March 2014 at 19:34  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

?

26 March 2014 at 20:02  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Oh dear Inspector, I was having a fit of the favours...and frustration with the ever-ongoing topic of gayness...so I am sorry for your obvious bewilderment

26 March 2014 at 20:07  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

That should read vapours...

26 March 2014 at 20:07  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Not you Mrs Proudie, dear heart.

The Inspector is somewhat annoyed that Jack wishes to drag him down some tangent, and is somewhat annoyed he even tried...

26 March 2014 at 20:15  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Ah dear Inspector, nobody could lead you astray....not even me

26 March 2014 at 20:27  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

My simplistic understanding of the Christian message was essentially one of love and tolerance for humanity.

It was also registered as a contract between the individual and the Maker. Settlement for transgressions in this life was an issue for the next. These self appointed enforcers, that assume to be infallible interpreters of God's intentions, are arrogant in the extreme, when it comes to dictating the rules to which all others shall bend.

Charity, compassion, empathy, integrity etc don't come with exclusions or conditions attached based on a persons religious choice or sex life.

Mrs Proudie 19.20 I didn't think you had it in you girl. Respect.

26 March 2014 at 20:39  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

MochaMacho

I do not wear blended textiles and I regularly stone to death my teenage children if they talk back to me.

So do tell us more about...

"we ignore much of what Paul taught because it doesn't match our own cultural imperatives"

Phil





26 March 2014 at 20:44  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Dear Dreadnaught, I have my moments...and this was one of them. Respect to you too...

26 March 2014 at 20:48  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Inspector :

"Gentlemen – the answer is to place yourself on a higher plane, as this man regularly does."

Gosh, you haven't been reading the Zohar by any chance?

26 March 2014 at 20:53  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Inspector, Happy Jack calls your '?' and raises it by one '?'. The point was a simple one.

Mrs Proudie, Happy Jack hopes you have regained your composure.

26 March 2014 at 21:04  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ IGiO (18:24)—I see what you mean. On saving them from themselves, I’d give it up as a lost cause. Reining back their influence will happen if and when the corridors of power are emptied, disinfected, and filled with politicians who reflect the views of ordinary people. When Nick Griffin was ambushed on Question Time, he said the sight of two men kissing was ‘creepy’. Before His Grace and communicants succumb to apoplexy, it doesn’t have to be Nick Griffin and it doesn’t have to be the BNP but it would need to be an, as it were, anti-Establishment party. UKIP is our best current hope, though it’s not anti-Establishment enough for my taste.

26 March 2014 at 21:12  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Dear Happy Jack, indeed I have, but I stand by my comments...

26 March 2014 at 21:15  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

MocaMacho,

"Show me the unshaven locks dangling by your jaw and we'll talk."

That's anti-people without having Payot discrimination, I tell you! PS- I'm currently growing mine, Yemenite style. Which style do you think is best?

26 March 2014 at 21:24  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Johnny Rottenborough, one is pleased you found this man’s post and understood it in its meaning. The ‘saving them from themselves’ part referred to the damage the cult is doing to ordinary and completely uninterested homosexuals. Those who are not set to turn society upside down, that is.

You mention ‘disinfecting the corridors of power’. One likes that. One likes that a lot. And it’s easily achievable. Just allow the constituencies to select their own candidate. Any intrusion from London in the form of some nefarious list with ‘metropolitan’ candidates to be punishable by two years in gaol, and unlimited fine, or both. If democracy is going to survive, then let it do so as the way parliament was intended. Local districts putting up local candidates, or if none are to be found suitable, let the local party seek out the interested from a wider field, THEMSELVES.


26 March 2014 at 21:34  
Blogger Meledor said...

World Vision Reverses Decision on Same Sex Marriage

(Hat tip: Stand Firm)

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/march-web-only/world-vision-reverses-decision-gay-same-sex-marriage.html

Praise God.

26 March 2014 at 21:38  
Blogger Donalbain said...

Then Jack would prefer that people suffer.

26 March 2014 at 21:39  
Blogger Donalbain said...

God's mission? He sent me to give sight to the blind.

26 March 2014 at 21:41  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

No Donalbain and Happy Jack has already said he does not 'do' guilt trips.

26 March 2014 at 21:44  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

@WorldVisionUSA Reverses Decision To Hire Christians in Same-Sex Marriages

26 March 2014 at 21:54  
Blogger DiscoDevil said...

Replace gay man in the parable with man wearing clothes made from two types of cloth eating a prawn. What comments would this elicit from those who see homosexuality as an abomination. Do not try to cloak your bigotry with scripture, its not working.

26 March 2014 at 21:54  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

David Kavanagh said..

"PS- I'm currently growing mine, Yemenite style. Which style do you think is best?"

What a coincidence, David my lad. Old Ernst is currently going for the gentile Yosemite style.

You need a very long moustache that can be drooped behind and over the ears, to hang down in twirling locks, to be accompanied with the phrase when you tells that "lying varmint," "Now say your prayers {.....}!"...Fritz Freleng started the Klondike religious craze many years ago and Ernst hopes to revive the tradition...


Yosemite Ernst 'I'm the roughest, toughest, root'nest, toot'nest, fastest lip-slinger gentile north, south, east, aaaaand west of the Pennines'!

26 March 2014 at 22:00  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Your Grace

Old Ernst does not know whether you are pleased or distraught that WV has reversed it's decision, however, it appears you cannot please everyone and the reversal has met with some disappointment from the people in the evangelical wing it alienated by it's approval of SSM...
"It seems to me that the damage is done. If years of prayer, study and soul-searching failed to put them in touch with God's will, then I have no faith that they are led by God's Spirit(So we always get it right do we? { 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!}).

The ones who voted for this enormity must resign in order to salvage credibility with the body of Christ (They were trying to please everyone and succeeded in pleasing none now..doing via media (or "middle way" as HG is prone to say)). Forgive them? Yes (YES!). Love them? Yes (YES!). Trust them again? I don't think so.(If Christ can forgive you and I, why not THEM??

1 John 1:9

9‎ If we (Whosoever they maybe) confess our (THEIR) sins, he is faithful and just and will (GUARANTEED) forgive us our sins and purify (Wash it off us to start again clean) us from all unrighteousness.
Pharisaical or what)"

Blofeld

ps

Is it old Ernst or has repentance become a dirty word to the body of Christ and it is only a useful and trustworthy term of asking Christ to forgive us of our sin and folly if it applies SOLELY to us and no one else...I think I've lived far too long sometimes!!!

26 March 2014 at 22:33  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Blofeld

The damage is done because the heart is revealed. Why did they change course so quickly? Because the backlash was so bad. What did the backlash foreshadow? A serious loss of revenue. If that is the reason they reversed themselves, then this isn't really repentance. It's naked self interest.

How does an organization come to this decision in the first place? What is lacking that they could do what they did? Why should a donor have confidence it isn't still lurking in the corner waiting to reappear? They can say "Sorry" but trust will be considerably more difficult to reestablish.

carl

26 March 2014 at 22:43  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Ernsty,

LOL! 'fraid to say I've already got a beard/tash. No, I mean I'm growing my sidelocks (Payot) to shoulder length, which is more Yemenite, that is Jews from the Yemen; now their wedding attire (for both groom and bride) are quite something...

26 March 2014 at 22:44  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

PPS

Thank The Father it was Christ that said these words to Peter and re-estalished him to His flock as a shepherd


Jesus said in Matthew 18. He said these words, “If your brother or sister sins against you… go to them. If they listen to you, you have won them over.” Have WV not listened and been won over..Whats the biblical perspective then about what has happened..They have been approached and won over!!


Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?"
Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.

Jesus said to Simon Peter, ‘Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?’

‘Yes, Lord,’ he said, ‘you know that I love you.’

Jesus said, ‘Feed my lambs.’

16 Again Jesus said, ‘Simon son of John, do you love me?’

He answered, ‘Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.’

Jesus said, ‘Take care of my sheep.’

17 The third time he said to him, ‘Simon son of John, do you love me?’

Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, ‘Do you love me?’ He said, ‘Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.’

Jesus said, ‘FEED MY SHEEP.!!!!

When life’s biggest blunders occur as they have for World Vision, the hurt party is to go to those who hurt them, to speak with them, to forgive them.
Thus win them back to the Lord.

It’s hard to do.

AND it takes a great deal of humility and courage to go, to forgive.

But it is Christ-like to go to the person who spoke the unimaginable and restore him/her, to forgive them for what happened, to go in love and offer a way out for them.

It is the way back to Christ and to continue in ministry, the way to renewal and restoration.

Blofeld

26 March 2014 at 22:49  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

Dredders

'My simplistic understanding of the Christian message was essentially one of love and tolerance for humanity'

So you admit it-you haven't studied the words of Jesus at all.

It may not be too late. Jesus: highly intolerant of sin, came to offer redemption consequent on repentance.

As Mr Robert Dylan hath said 'Don't criticise that you don't understand.'

26 March 2014 at 22:53  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

DiscoDevil, just out of curiosity. Does anal bleeding bother you ?

26 March 2014 at 22:54  
Blogger William Lewis said...

DiscoDevil

What about those who say that God has ordained that marriage is between a man and a woman and that sex is for marriage only? Is that also cloaking bigotry in scripture?

26 March 2014 at 23:04  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

IGiO

C'mon Inspector that comment was just gratuitous. What's the point of saying something like that?

carl

26 March 2014 at 23:06  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

carl jacobs said...

Blofeld

The damage is done because the heart is revealed (Dear Fellow, Ernst trusts you apply these same principles to yourself..Do you repent because you know you needed to or did the Lord bring it to your heart and mind that you did wrong in His various ways of achieving this purpose of discipline and cleansing of unrighteousness???).

Why did they change course so quickly?(Jesus said in Matthew 18. He said these words, “If your brother or sister sins against you… go to them. If they listen to you, you have won them over.” )
Because the backlash was so bad(IT WAS but Jesus said in Matthew 18. He said these words, “If your brother or sister sins against you… go to them. If they listen to you, you have won them over.” They did and they were won over).

What did the backlash foreshadow? (A loss of support by those that had previously agreed with it..Is this so different than the Apostolic decree on disciplining the offending brethren by separation from the body of believers..What's your beef, as our American cous(z)ins are prone to say?)

A serious loss of revenue (Dera fellow, do see that the atheists and secularists were rallying round, to make up the difference ut this probably brought the situation into stark relief for the board of WV...This would be the future path they would have to go along if their evangelical arm (Remember they are missionary foremost)) stopped supporting them!!!). If that is the reason they reversed themselves, then this isn't really repentance. It's naked self interest (A call that funds being withheld is the way any body that supports says that the supported are NOT honouring their commitment to the supporters).

How does an organization come to this decision in the first place (It tries to please Christ and evangelise the world and loses perspective of it's own mission statement and remit!)?

What is lacking that they could do what they did? (We are all humans who sin and fail short of the glory of God but theirs was high profile whereas our own grubby failings, thankfully, stay between us and The Lord..Aren't we the lucky ones, hmm)

Why should a donor have confidence it isn't still lurking in the corner waiting to reappear?(Are we any different if you fail her indoors and promise it will never happen again, it's called sincerity and trust that it was genuine and ONLY time ever tells in all situations, Carl my lad.)

They can say "Sorry" but trust will be considerably more difficult to reestablish (It always is and must e earned ut starting off cynically NEVER helps towards the repentant ones !!!!!).

Blofeld

carl

26 March 2014 at 23:07  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Carl, we use live ammunition on this site. Didn’t anyone tell you ?

Besides, welcome to the homosexual way, in all its gory...

26 March 2014 at 23:19  
Blogger Pete Skett said...

Any comparison of consensual homosexual marriage with paedophilia belies the most blatant homophobia which demands repentance

26 March 2014 at 23:22  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

If YG will forgive but it made me chortle out loud and scared Tiddles?

ReTweeted

Henry ‏@HenricusVIII 41m

I trust @His_Grace will give the @WorldVisionUSA subject a bit of a rest. Wasn't his finest friendly fire moment.

*Re-Tittered and Re-chortled*

Blowers

26 March 2014 at 23:24  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

The U-turn by World Vision looks bad. It's gone beyond the original question about gay couples. They changed their minds too quickly and too readily, giving the impression that they never had any firm convictions on the issue one way or the other. And if not on this issue, why on any other issue?

26 March 2014 at 23:25  
Blogger Integrity said...

Blofeld said @ 26 March 2014 22:33
Is it old Ernst or has repentance become a dirty word to the body of Christ
Yes Ernst, saying sorry is OK because your only sorry you got caught.
Repentance means turn around and face the other way. A new and different start. It is a gift of god but one that is available to all.
Bless you Ernst, you are up late.

26 March 2014 at 23:26  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Blowers, Happy Jack is with Carl on this one. Why? Partly because of this from WV:

"While World Vision U.S. stands firmly on the biblical view of marriage, we strongly affirm that all people, regardless of their sexual orientation, are created by God and are to be loved and treated with dignity and respect."

Why the need to say this - and juxtapose it with Christian marriage? Are they afraid of being labelled 'homophobes'? Not 'with it' enough for the modern age? And another clue is in the term "sexual orientation".

26 March 2014 at 23:29  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Pete Skett, ah yes. Homosexual paedophilia. A no no area for the gays, unless it’s Catholic priests involved. Then it’s bring out the chilled champagne. What is so amazing is how being in the priesthood automatically drops a gay man from the whole. Similar to known HIV+ Brighton gays who have to move away due to hatred from their own. You blighters certainly know how to wield the knife. The Inspector will give you gang that...


26 March 2014 at 23:32  
Blogger William Lewis said...

Happy Jack

What's wrong with that statement? Both clauses can be held consistently by non-Christians and Christians alike. I think that Blowers and Tiddles have been pretty solid on this. Unfortunately WV tried to compromise on something that they didn't believe in (SSM) and discovered that their core funding don't believe it either.

26 March 2014 at 23:40  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Quick question : how does an organisation with 1,100 employees and a budget of $1 BILLION make such a cock up? (no pun intended).

26 March 2014 at 23:47  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

William Lewis, WV are trying to please two opposing forces. Never good. Linking the two clauses suggested that opposition to homosexual *marriage* means a rejection of homosexual people. Why not affirm homosexuality is a sin?

And Jack thinks the term "sexual orientation" is misleading and, like the term "gay", should not be used by 'Bible believing Christians'. Its homosexuality; its sinful; and its a choice.

And it was about the money.

26 March 2014 at 23:49  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Happy Jack

"While World Vision U.S. stands firmly on the biblical view of marriage, we strongly affirm that all people, regardless of their sexual orientation, are created by God and are to be loved and treated with dignity and respect."

Who on earth would disagree with THAT, the RCC does not, does it, so why is WV different??? Far too cynical lad.

There is a fine distinctive to be made between what WV have said and what Westboro Baptist Church etc said about Homosexuals, as christian doctrine, now isn't there?

Are Homosexuals completely devoid of access to God's grace towards sinners, should we shun, spit and call them names or see them as sinners that the heterosexual world now say it's ok, as heterosexuals now engage in the same act, except the face turning round does not have stubble across it (Well, unless you are married to a southern european lady that is *giggles*) and dangling bits, does it?

"Why the need to say this - and juxtapose it with Christian marriage?(because THIS was the reason for schism with their OWN supporters and to confirm back to the evangelical world as a sort of credo 'Aint this what you believe also regarding them as sinners) Are they afraid of being labelled 'homophobes'(Isn't the RCC, lad?)? Not 'with it' enough for the modern age (Will Pope Francis e more 'With it' to the world and HIS own?)? And another clue is in the term "sexual orientation".(Seriously, Lad, does humanity exercise anything other except 'orientation'?? Has old Ernst taught you nothing about a person's basic attitude, beliefs, or feelings in relation to a particular subject or issue that can be thorny at best)"

Blowers

26 March 2014 at 23:57  
Blogger Ivan said...


Don't ask, don't tell was the most reasonable compromise possible. Christian organisations have lived with that for millennia with no harm to anyone.

The Sodomite Samaritan would have accepted it as a matter course. The innkeeper would not have been troubled into accepting barebacking as an expression of his good faith. The Levite on his way back from the Temple, would not have to worry about ass-banditry from the Samaritan, in addition to other brigandage in the ravines of Jericho. Surely Jesus, the Divine Physician, would not have passed such a cup of suffering to those of faith.



27 March 2014 at 00:03  
Blogger Ivan said...


...would have accepted it as a matter of course.

27 March 2014 at 00:05  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Happy Jack said...

William Lewis, WV are trying to please two opposing forces. Never good.(Are they any different that RC's, CofE etc..read bulls and lambeth palace statements etc)

Linking the two clauses suggested that opposition to homosexual *marriage* means a rejection of homosexual people.

Why not affirm homosexuality is a sin? " See their mission statement and see they affirm God's decrees are inerrant! The problem was caused by the term marriage in the modern vernacular and NOT individuals hetero or otherwise SINNING, which they CONDEMN!!

And Jack thinks the term "sexual orientation" is misleading and, like the term "gay", should not be used by 'Bible believing Christians'. Its homosexuality; its sinful; and its a choice." Pope Francis egs to disagree as head of the largest group of christians on the planet "July 29, 2013|10:36 am

Pope Francis has spoken openly about the issue of homosexuality on Monday, saying that he would not judge priests for their sexual orientation." and said "If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge him?" the pope said at an 80-minute news conference with reporters on his plane as he returned from his recent trip to Brazil.http://www.christianpost.com/news/pope-francis-will-not-judge-priests-for-sexual-orientation-reaffirms-catholic-stance-on-homosexuality-women-abortion-and-sin-101064/

And it was about the money." don't it seem for all churches and their organisations it always is, else they would sell their treasure, give it to the poor and follow Him as He asked!!!

Blofeld

27 March 2014 at 00:10  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Blowers, Happy Jack is cynical about this U-turn by WV and the apparent need to appease homosexuals, appear 'modern' and 'relevant' and, at the same time, retain support of the millions of Christians who keep it in business.

And, so you know, Jack isn't over impressed with Pope Francis' double-speak over the issue of homosexuality.

27 March 2014 at 00:15  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Happy Jack said...

Blowers, Happy Jack is cynical about this U-turn by WV and the apparent need to appease homosexuals, appear 'modern' and 'relevant' and, at the same time, retain support of the millions of Christians who keep it in business.

And, so you know, Jack isn't over impressed with Pope Francis' double-speak over the issue of homosexuality. " See Lad, why Ernst bangs on about ALL repenting by examining what they say, write and what they do. No person or body is exempt from this requirement..Its mandatory lad!!

Blowers,

27 March 2014 at 00:24  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

the apparent need (of the {...})to "appease homosexuals, appear 'modern' and 'relevant' and, at the same time, retain support of the millions of Christians who keep it in business."

Jack

Put any churches name or their organisation in (of the {...})and you see the problem of being IN the world but not OF the world?

Blowers

27 March 2014 at 00:30  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Blowers, Happy Jack agrees with you.

What irks him most about the times we live in is the abandonment of basic Christian precepts and teachings. And this is by all the various churches and denominations - with possibly the exception of the Orthodox Church.

It seems to Jack the Western churches either go overboard in condemnation, like Westboro Baptists, or appease, like the Church of England, or use double-speak like Pope Francis.

And Jack understands Pope Francis meant individual homosexuals, who are attempting to resist sin, should not be judged and condemned but supported in their struggle. The church should minister to them - whatever this actually means. He does not think Francis supports homosexual lifestyles or *marriage*. However, such was the ambiguity of his words, they were open to whatever interpretation one chose to put on them. And, it seems, there is evidence the Vatican is riddled with active homosexual archbishops, bishops and priests.

God help His Church that it cannot stand with greater resolve on this issue and on a host of other key issues.

27 March 2014 at 00:42  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

God help His Church that it cannot stand with greater resolve on this issue and on a host of other key issues." The very modern conundrum facing the Church and all believers which requires resolve, God's word and His leading, my lad.!

Blowers

27 March 2014 at 00:47  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Bloweers, Happy Jack has seen many things in his life and he knows it never helps a person to reassure them about a behaviour that harms them. The loving thing to do is to challenge the justifications they make for wrong actions and let them know the consequences.

It seems to Jack the Church has become so wrong footed by the secular world and its atheist values that it is attempting to soften its message in order not to be unpopular. It is trying to reach out and include sinners by diluting God's word rather than loving them by showing the error of their ways. And the liberal and modern 'theologians' are leading an assault on the truth of God's message.

Fine if someone wants to live a life that is regarded as sinful. That's their choice. But reworking and reinterpreting scripture and altering 2000 years of established teaching to accommodate sin? To teach that these behaviours do not need to change and are compatible with God's will? These things are beyond the pale.

27 March 2014 at 02:32  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Happy Jack said...

Couldn't have expressed it better, my lad.

"It seems to Jack the Church has become so wrong footed by the secular world and its atheist values that it is attempting to soften its message in order not to be unpopular. It is trying to reach out and include sinners by diluting God's word rather than loving them by showing the error of their ways. And the liberal and modern 'theologians' are leading an assault on the truth of God's message." It is better to have 7000 true believers that 7 million deluded souls..It's about quantitative rather than qualitative
that's the problem..All will not be saved neither do they want to be, unfortunately, but the churches feel otherwise and plan with worldly objects and strategies to outreach those that rather demand choice bread and wine for entertainment rather than for the good of their eternal souls from the One who made salvation possible and free?

The tragedy of hell/lake of fire is that it was only meant to house the devil and his fallen ilk...God never intended for one single person to end up in Gehenna.

It is NOT God’s will that anyone should perish in their sins and go to Hell... “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, NOT WILLING THAT ANY SHOULD PERISH, but that ALL should come to REPENTANCE” (2nd Peter 3:9).

It is NOT God’s fault if men and women are stubborn and unwilling to REPENT of their unbelief. Gehenna was NOT created for human beings but rather for Satan and his horde of demons.

We are ALL without excuse for the wrong decisions we make in life, Jack lad — we CANNOT blame God.

Perhaps other humans influenced us to make some wrong decisions but that’s not God’s fault, or we couldn't spare the time to care if there is a God and what this might entail for us.

The Bible makes references to the body being destroyed in Gehenna... “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy BOTH SOUL AND BODY in hell” (Matthew 10:28).

Those in Hades will be cast into the Gehenna/Lake of Fire. The second death is a SEPARATION of your body, soul and spirit from God for ALL ETERNITY! How terrible is that and all at the cost of NOT making the ONE right decision whilst walking this earthly briefly.

If man will not accept the gift of eternal life from God, then he will receive the only other alternative—eternal punishment in the Lake of Fire.

God never created mankind to be put in such a horrible place, but there is no other place for him, is there?. Hell was created for the Devil and his angels.

Old Ernst take it as a given that this is a place where God never goes and neither would we want to that believe.

The second death means eternal and absolute separation from God, without HOPE, that tomorrow may bring something different.and the church plans whilst mankind are getting born lost daily and march fearlessly onwards unto death! Go figure?

It makes my soul heavy with despair for the lost opportunity, as time passes on relentlessly and stops for no man as the church makes detour upon detour, until we get as lost with our phoney objectives and the worldly signposts as much as the unsaved are?!

Nighty Night Jack lad and all communicants.

In some ways, today has been a bad day for the Church as we look as directionless as those we hope to help lead along the strait and narrow. BOLDNESS AND CLARITY are the key factors required!

Blofeld

27 March 2014 at 03:16  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Blofeld

So much to say.

First off, I don't see how Matthew 18 applies. WV didn't sin against me. There is no church to which I could take the complaint if they had. There is no possibility of church discipline. This doesn't even involve the actions of a private individual. WV isn't a person. It's an organization. The individuals involved are making group decisions on behalf of the organization. That is a very different dynamic.

The board made a decision on behalf of WV and then the board recinded that decision within two days. You say this is repentance. How does a board repent? A board's decision is by definition a group decision and repentance is by definition an individual act. To impose a model of repentance is to mix categories. You are blithely personifing the board in order to make the model of Matt 18 fit. It doesn't work that way.

People do not change their minds quickly on this subject. If the board as a collective saw the blowback from the decision as a threat to the integrity of the organization, then the board could easily reverse itself for that reason alone. It would not show repentance as you describe it but an exercise of fiduciary responsibility. The opinions of the board members that led to the initial decision would not have changed. Only their understanding of the consequences.

WV said the initial decision was intended to promote unity. They wanted to become neutral because they draw support not only from conservative churches but also I Liberal churches like PCUSA and ELCA. I think they wanted to stay out of the fight to keep a broad base of financial support. If so, then the board's motivations are suspect both for the decision and its recension. The observer has every reason to distrust this board because all that has really changed is its perception of the harm inflicted.

In short, I don't think the board said "We did something wrong." I think the board said "We made a disastrous miscalculation." Those aren't even close to equivalent statements.

carl

27 March 2014 at 03:27  
Blogger Patrick Cox said...

Your Grace, I feel that many commentators and those 'churches' that adopt a punitive stance against a charity showing 'charity' to a group of people I feel sure God loves as much as every other sinner on this earth are failing to ask themselves one vital question. Namely: How would Christ respond to these people? Everything I have read in the Gospels, not Exodus, Leviticus or Deuteronomy (See Hebrews 13:8 if you want a quote!), suggests that Christ would as His father would, embrace them. Who am I therefore, to send them away?

I think it is decidedly 'un-Christian' when someone threatens to withdraw support for the proverbial 'innkeeper' simply because he accepts the money from a 'Samaritan' we don't approve of. That is the Pharisaic position.

27 March 2014 at 05:51  
Blogger Nicholas Colloff said...

I expect if blogs were available in the C18th people would be warning people of that pretended Christian Wilberforce and his backlash against the Biblical practice of slavery! Let us all stop pretending that we rely on Scripture alone to arrive at our moral positions. That honesty would be a good start in having a mature conversation!

27 March 2014 at 07:45  
Blogger Len said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

27 March 2014 at 07:45  
Blogger Len said...


I think many are falling into a carefully concealed trap.

This is exactly the trap the pharisees intended for Jesus Christ.
should we pay our taxes to Caesar(support an organization which is very much for this' World system' a system which upholds this world system of' moral values')

Jesus`s answer was to "render to Caesar (This World system) what belonged to this World system and to God what belonged to God."
So we do not condone this corrupt World system but use it to do 'good works'.

The main issue is we stand for the Gospel and promote the Gospel as our main objective....It is a fine line to walk being IN the World but not OF the World...

27 March 2014 at 07:50  
Blogger Drastic Plastic said...

Don't be silly, Cranmer. This post is a plea for endorsement of a hideous vice, by means of abuse of the scripture.

Any evil could be "justified" by a similar tactic. Indeed try it - just replace the word "gay" in your post with "paedo".

Perhaps you'd care to post about the "racist samaritan"? Except, of course, that would be dangerous.

I'm afraid, dear chap, you now have the establishment's hand firmly up your bottom. I hope it's uncomfortable; because getting comfortable getting shafted is even worse.

Nobody in the world ever voted to endorse this evil. It has been promoted by every trick known to Goebbels, every type of lie and misrepresentation and manipulation. You know this. Why be influenced by a process of societal brainwashing which you are old enough to watch happen?

27 March 2014 at 08:21  
Blogger Flossie said...

DiscoDevil (and one or two others) - trotting out the old canard about mixed fibres and prawns may go down well with Pink News readers and others who have never laid hands on a bible, but it will not wash here.

Please be informed that cultural mores of the Old Testament were replaced by the New.



27 March 2014 at 08:22  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Nicholas Colloff @ 07:45

An interesting thought. Of course, despite blog absence, exactly such conversations did happen: an Old-Testament view of slavery versus a New-Testament view. (And, within the NT, how to read 'Philemon' against, "In Christ there is neither slave..." etc.

Two quick questions.

Consider a white slave trader.

1. Could he avoid being a) a slaver, b) white?

2. If there's a difference, what is it?

27 March 2014 at 08:23  
Blogger Lady Anne said...

YG,

Here is a question to which I do not know the answer -

If the Gospel is preached to a "married" homosexual, and they respond, are they then expected to get a divorce? And what if they have adopted a child - is that child then expected to cope with a divorce?

How far do we go?

27 March 2014 at 08:40  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Like many here I suspect, I can feel two opposing tugs leading in two different directions. Selecting the right path is extremely difficult.

No Christian informed by Scripture and the teachings of the Church wants to condone or encourage behaviour long considered by orthodoxy to be wrong. Moreover recent science and social science seem to affirm those biblical and traditional positions. But they are also reluctant to cut off the supply of funds for the relief of suffering and poverty, for which this global, ecumenical organisation is a conduit.

So I like many others are caught on the horns of a dilemma. Deciding the right path is made trebly difficult by the pace of change swirling around the whole same sex bundle of issues, carried onward by our contemporary media which works faster than our human brains can cope with. But the results of a decision are severe, either way. What to do ?

As Carl says we are not dealing here with an individual, but an organisation. He's right. So my earlier pointing (@11.53) to the account of Jesus saving the adulterer from stoning, as the Pharisees seemed to invite (John 8 : 1-11), "the love the sinner, reject the sins", approach does not apply here.
Whereas Len @ 7.50 has I think found that narrow way ahead that both cooperates with the systems of this present world, purely to do good, whilst not being recruited into or unwittingly absorbed by its beliefs and practices. That seems to be the only course of action that enables us to continue upholding Biblical truth whilst ensuring that the oppressed are also helped.
How difficult these decisions truly are. Well done Len I say !

27 March 2014 at 08:46  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Lady Anne @ 08:40

Good question. Here's a linked one for heterosexuals.

"Be not yoked with unbelievers."

So two unbelievers are married to one another. One becomes a Christian, the other doesn't.

What then?

27 March 2014 at 08:57  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Lady Anne

Sadly I haven't time to write out a full reply to you (will try to do so this evening), but precisely that sort of situation, sans a formal "marriage", occurred with a couple at my previous church - and there were children involved.

I don't want to do the situation an injustice, so permit me to say for now that it is good to ask these sort of questions, for they do arise in the messiness of life. But if I were to offer a word of caution it would be this: don't let the asking of them prevent or hinder you from actually bringing the Gospel to the lost.

God knows all too well about the messiness of life - better than we do actually.

27 March 2014 at 09:05  
Blogger Holy Things said...

I appreciate that I am coming to this blog a day later and it must be difficult to wade through all the contributions, nevertheless, please could I appeal to the real Cranmer to return to this blog site as the current pretender is becoming more than tedious?
Where to begin with this modern interpretation of the parable?
First, Jesus’ response to the questioner was two-fold and the first bit included loving God. I had kinda assumed (as did Jesus, come to think of it) that obedience to His word and commands was a feature of this.
Secondly, the lack of necessary detail. There are many who profess a gay leaning or desire, but choose to deliberately live ‘normal’ lives in spite of this or adopt a practice of abstinence (and all credit to them, and all shame on those, including Cranmer, who fail to continue to fight for them and supinely cave in to the trends of today and wash their hands and say, “ ‘tis the will of Westminster – let us move on.”). But I digress; the point is, so what is the precise nature of WV’s new policy?
Thirdly, the setting up of straw men. In what manner of reasoning is the homosexual to be equated with a Samaritan, other than in a poor attempt to expose a hypocrisy that does not necessarily exist? This is logic well beneath the real Cranmer
Fourthly, the gobsmacking direct libel and slander of fellow travellers with Christ who, to the best of my knowledge, have not turned away from need or evil and evidence suggests that they have done the opposite.
Disappointing.

27 March 2014 at 09:22  
Blogger Lady Anne said...

Explorer @8.57

I know many women married to unbelievers - and scripture specifically tells us to stay put in that situation unless the other half wants to leave.(1 Cor 7 v13).

However, she is not in a sexual relationship which is otherwise viewed as illicit.

27 March 2014 at 09:34  
Blogger IanCad said...

Patrick Cox

Well Said! But It seems to be the minority opinion here.

Now, I most certaintly don't embrace homosexual marriage, and, in obedience, recognize that straight shacking up is not the way of the true followers of Christ.

These behaviours are overt and are condemned by most believers.

I thank God that my sins are concealed from all but He who sees all. For, if they were all on show to the public --they are most apparent to my family-- I am sure that in the eyes of the world, and especially those on this blog, I would stand as condemned as those deemed fornicators and perverts.

And deservedly so.

27 March 2014 at 09:58  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Lady Anne @ 09:34

True. that is the crucial difference: a biblically-recognised marriage.

27 March 2014 at 10:01  
Blogger Galant said...

Three Questions -
Perhaps the question is, why give to a charity that is specifically Christian? Why not any other charity doing the same work of caring?

A second question might also be, what if those donating do not cease in their donations but move them to a charity who satisfies their answer to question 1?

And lastly, considering the 'sponsor a child' nature of much of World Vision's giving, are the answers to questions 1 and 2 sufficient reason to justify the termination of the lifeline to the little ones you have already forged?

27 March 2014 at 10:05  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Patrick Cox

I feel that many commentators and those 'churches'...

Scare quotes? Now who is being uncharitable?

... that adopt a punitive stance against a charity showing 'charity'...

WV presents itself as an orthodox Christian mission, and asks people to financially support it on that account. When it makes decisions that call this orthodoxy into question, it can't complain when people react accordingly. This isn't a punitive reaction. It's called discernment. Christians have a responsibility to be wise with the use of money. Giving money to non-orthodox groups is not wise. Imagine if WV had said "We have changed our Statement of faith to encompass the Mormons." The firestorm would have been much worse, but the difference would have been in degree and not kind.

How would Christ respond to these people?

How about "Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you." Remember according to the Economy of the Trinity, it was with the Son that Abraham pled for Sodom. And the Son found not even ten righteous. It is the Son who is presented in Rev 19 and not as a Lamb. As we say repeatedly "He will come again to judge the living and the dead." The prospect of Judgment is real and we do not exercise charity by suppressing that reality.

I think it is decidedly 'un-Christian' when someone threatens to withdraw support for the proverbial 'innkeeper'...

WV doesn't represent itself as a morally and spiritually neutral innkeeper. It says "We are a Christian organization and you should support us because we believe these things." The continuing support it receives is therefore conditional on that continued commitment.

... simply because he accepts the money from a 'Samaritan' we don't approve of.

WV isn't accepting money from a Samaritan. This isn't about people objecting to a dirty source of money. You've changed the metaphor. This is about people wondering after WVs commitment to maintain Christian orthodoxy in the face of a very non-orthodox (and hastily reversed) decision. If they cease to be Orthodox, they should lose support. That is not just wisdom. That is a Christian's responsibility.

carl

carl

27 March 2014 at 11:38  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Blofeld

So much to say.(quelle surprise!!)

First off, I don't see how Matthew 18 applies. WV didn't sin against me. (Au contraire, mon ami. ALL sin is against God only!) There is no church to which I could take the complaint if they had (WV are a mission charity linked to evangelical principles, not just a christian charity in dubious name only such as Oxfam, Christian aid) that gets its financial support from church individuals that give via their church to mission, the other is the government's filthy penny). There is no possibility of church discipline (The COLLECTIVE of the CHURCHES can and DID discipline by approach and consequences if the path was kept to!). This doesn't even involve the actions of a private individual (It involved the disciplining from the individual via the collective of the church). WV isn't a person. It's an organization (Since when did churches stop being an ORGANISATION??). The individuals involved are making group decisions on behalf of the organization (Churches Hierarchy such as John Calvin , PERHAPS?). That is a very different dynamic (It T'ain't!)).

The board made a decision on behalf of WV and then the board recinded that decision within two days (Like churches do via their hierarchy). You say this is repentance (It was!). How does a board repent (How does a church repent collectively?)? A board's decision is by definition a group decision and repentance is by definition an individual act (Seriously?). To impose a model of repentance is to mix categories (It is to ignore the categories that make up the whole/collective). You are blithely personifing the board in order to make the model of Matt 18 fit. It doesn't work that way (It's called Biblical Principles!!!).

People do not change their minds quickly on this subject (Oh get a grip, man. A crisis occurs in the church an they say, lets take our time, we don't want people to think we are just doing it for the sake of doing it. A crisis is A CRISIS!!). If the board as a collective saw the blowback from the decision as a threat to the integrity of the organization, then the board could easily reverse itself for that reason alone (Sometimes satan blinds us to what will become a crisis because we think it acceptable 'In Grace and love towards others...There is a way that seems right in the eyes of men?). It would not show repentance as you describe it but an exercise of fiduciary responsibility (You have done something in church as a leader and this will have consequences that may divide the membership..Do you say anything to reverse the issue or carry on regardless, Calvinistically. It was ordained to be, let it be). The opinions of the board members that led to the initial decision would not have changed. Only their understanding of the consequences (Strewth, the black and white legalism not the love, if it showed any to sinners, of Calvinism in action).

27 March 2014 at 12:23  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

WV said the initial decision was intended to promote unity (An attempt at false unity never succeeds hence why Ernst keeps Calvinism at arms length via a 10 ft pool with excrement dangling off it! ). They wanted to become neutral because they draw support not only from conservative churches but also I Liberal churches like PCUSA and ELCA (The vast majority of supporters are Evangelical fundamentalist, lad. Do read those that stated they would leave and WV appraisal of where their funds come from, there's a nice chappie). I think they wanted to stay out of the fight to keep a broad base of financial support (Are they any different from the visible body of churches, oh observant one?). If so, then the board's motivations are suspect both for the decision and its recension (All motivation seems like dubious reasons to change/repent to those being sinned against, it's whats in the heart that matters as appearances can flatter to deceive and only GOD can know this, oh Calvinistic one). The observer has every reason to distrust this board because all that has really changed is its perception of the harm inflicted (The mere human heart is deceitful and wicked, Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? Only God can truly make and know the difference. ).

In short, I don't think the board said "We did something wrong." I think the board said "We made a disastrous miscalculation." Those aren't even close to equivalent statements.
"Again we cannot irrefutably judge by our observation, another person's behavior or the collective decision..ONLY God knows this. Only God can truly discern at the “joints” of our soul and spirit when we all say or do things. Even in the face of “seeming” unrighteousness, we are still not qualified to “judge” anyone’s behavior. Each soul and the collective of believers are accountable for the motives of their behavior else why the letters to the Seven Churches in Revelation and appeals to the individuals within them. All who claim Him come under His jurisdiction, and not what another one’s perception of their actions might be. It is ultimately only God’s mercy that will also consider the newer converts along with all of the weakest. So it is that, it is sometimes difficult for an older Christian in their humanity, to intentionally, or unintentionally “judge” by their personal “perception”.. someone else behavior. Sin is still sin, but only God can accurately discern their motives and move them towards repentance if needs be.

Ernst, carl me enthusiastic Calvinist chap

27 March 2014 at 12:26  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Then you said this;

carl jacobs said @27 March 2014 11:38...

*Giggles and Chuckles*

At least old Ernst is always ROCK solid and consistent with his 'ORTHODOX' views.

Blowers * Tittering, Cackling and howling this laughternoon*

27 March 2014 at 12:41  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Blofeld

(quelle surprise!!)

Now that was below the belt. Completely beyond the pale of reasoned discourse. Despite my stunningly rich vocabulary and my sharp elegant rhetorical style, I am certainly a concise writer. It is only my natural American humility that keeps me from constantly pointing it out.

And, no, I don't care what my snob daughter with all her "English classes" has to say about my writing. What does she know, anyways.

carl

27 March 2014 at 12:49  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

27 March 2014 at 13:15  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

carl jacobs said...

Blofeld

(quelle surprise!!)

Now that was below the belt. Completely beyond the pale of reasoned discourse. Despite my stunningly rich vocabulary and my sharp elegant rhetorical style, I am certainly a concise writer (That t'aint Ernest's point! *Sniggers*). It is only my natural American humility that keeps me from constantly pointing it out. "

*Huge Giggles*

Blowers

27 March 2014 at 13:16  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

Galant at 20.05.

Three answers,,or maybe 2.5.

Why would a Christian give money to a Christian charity? Because the donor has the freedom to choose what to do with their own money. As a follower of Jesus it is my duty to fund Christian work. Not necessarily exclusively.

What if a donor switches donation to another charity due to a matter of conscience? I think this a different slant on the same question, therefore the same answer.

What of withdrawing aid from a sponsor child becsuse of a disagreement with the charity management? All I can say is that I sponsor a child with Compassion and Open Doors and I wouldn't stop for such a reason. Conscience matters but is trumped by duty to the poor. As far as I can see.....

The key thing is...we are individually responsible for the choices we make about money. God loves a cheerful giver and is merciful to the one who shows mercy.

Kind regards.

27 March 2014 at 13:28  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Holy Things said...

I appreciate that I am coming to this blog a day later and it must be difficult to wade through all the contributions(Do try, my fine fellow then you have a fine construct to work from?), nevertheless (Here we go!!), please could I appeal to the real Cranmer to return to this blog site as the current pretender is becoming more than tedious? (How so?)


Where to begin with this modern interpretation of the parable? (as if you didn't know? *Giggles*)

First, Jesus’ response to the questioner was two-fold and the first bit included loving God. I had kinda assumed (as did Jesus, come to think of it) that obedience to His word and commands was a feature of this.(Indeed!)

Secondly, the lack of necessary detail. There are many who profess a gay leaning or desire, but choose to deliberately live ‘normal’ lives in spite of this or adopt a practice of abstinence (and all credit to them, and all shame on those, including Cranmer, who fail to continue to fight for them and supinely cave in to the trends of today and wash their hands and say, “ ‘tis the will of Westminster – let us move on.”). But I digress; the point is, so what is the precise nature of WV’s new policy?(It is NOW an old policy, that has been rescinded lad...See, reading through ALL the comments helps to build a fine and reliable construct to argue from..Do carry on!)

Thirdly, the setting up of straw men. In what manner of reasoning is the homosexual to be equated with a Samaritan, other than in a poor attempt to expose a hypocrisy that does not necessarily exist? This is logic well beneath the real Cranmer (A strange polemic but let him without error either spoken or written cast the first diatribe!)

Fourthly, the gobsmacking direct libel and slander of fellow travellers with Christ who, to the best of my knowledge, have not turned away from need or evil and evidence suggests that they have done the opposite.

Disappointing. (Gladdened to see there is one definite inerrant believer within the whole body of Christ who cannot err and constantly 'gets it right'. You have filled all here with hope that we maybe like you!!!)

All of us become creatures of our time by association with the common tendencies of the times within we live. Look at how Cranmer , Calvin and Others taught contra to the errors we know that they committed...Ain't hindsight smashing, Fellow!..Sometimes we can be too judgmental and other times too easy to forgive but we need to constantly go to Gods word to examine and re-examine CONTINUALLY. Of course you need not do this as you appear a perfect one ahead of the time of the Sons of Glory. A new First Fruit, perhaps?

Blofeld

27 March 2014 at 13:37  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

27 March 2014 at 13:45  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

27 March 2014 at 13:46  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

PS re Galant's reasonsble questions. There are several charities indeed classes of charity to which I will not give one penny even if asked and refusal offends.

A crude example which might offend some. Cancer research. I know something about cancer and in my view the science is way into the law of diminishing returns. Same for heart disease- already well funded and IMO no big new breaks to be made. Fourscore years. Psalm 90. Bigger, better gains to be made elsewhere.

Lower still come animal charities, lowest of all the RSPB who caused blasted vermin cormorants to be wrongfully protected so they have multiplied inland and are wiping out fish stocks in rivers and lakes. Ask any angler.

Others no doubt take a different view and, like me, are free to choose whom they give to and withold from.

PS I recall that the Dawkyman tried to set up an atheist relief and development charity to match the work those deluded bronze age fairytale believers were doing. Anyone hear how that worked out?

27 March 2014 at 13:46  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

27 March 2014 at 13:50  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

27 March 2014 at 13:53  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

27 March 2014 at 13:53  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Julia Gasper said...

The blog administrator does not like to reveal the facts about Peter Tatchell's connection with the Paedophile Information Exchange."

Dear Julia, Believe its because you are promoting information that is already on your OWN blog...Why not just advise you have information relevant that some may be interested in regarding "the Paedophile Information Exchange."

It sometimes seems to old Ernst you enjoy provoking His Grace rather than enlightening others, hmmm?

Blofeld

27 March 2014 at 13:54  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Julia Gasper said...

Paul Huxley (above ) is right.

(He is on this, so what? We can all be right and wrong on somethings at the same time..Ernst knows he can! Can you not be also or are you like Holy Things?)

Blofeld

27 March 2014 at 13:59  
Blogger IanCad said...

Oh Dear!
She's back!

27 March 2014 at 14:26  
Blogger IanCad said...

Now you see it, now you don't!!

27 March 2014 at 14:27  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Dear Julia Gaspar,

The removal of your comments linking to your own blog has nothing at all to do with His Grace's aversion to "the truth", as you call it.

It is simply because you drop by periodically to promote yourself, your grievance du jour and your latest blogpost; contribute very little to reasoned debate; and even have the audacity to incite His Grace's communicants to boycott his blog.

Please just go.

27 March 2014 at 14:28  
Blogger Matthew B said...

The whole illustration of the Good Samaritan is simply out of place here. Surely you realize the whole point of that is to illustrate "who is my neighbor", and not "whom do I employ to represent my organization"! More likely the woman at the well (John 8) which the Lord concludes by saying "Neither do I condemn you; go and SIN NO MORE". The Anglicans' continued appalling tolerance and promotion of unbiblical practices is hardly surprising in your blog. However suspect the sudden change of view of Spears et al, at least they have corrected changed their official view to be in line with the Word of God and not the party line of apostate Lambeth Palace and Westminster.

27 March 2014 at 14:29  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Just so others don't feel that Ernst is a promoter or agrees of homosexual behaviour.

It is wrong Biblically, it is against nature in a way that heterosexual and marriage within that 'orientation' is not, that is blessed and declared holy by the Almighty.

The reason Ernst does not go on about Homosexuals is that he hopes and prays they will repent of this sinful lifestyle.

Ernst has never come across a repentant ex homosexual that said..'Being called a F*&%, S%$£, D$%^ H"&%, A*%$ B*^$^& suddenly made me realise, I was actually wrong and needed Christ in my life, like all those kind believers telling me so in no uncertain, harsh terms!!!

Trust this helps others understand why Ernst never bangs on, 'ad nausem, et infinitum' with diatribes against them as others do here without the Love of Christ.

They are sinners like all of us but their particular sin is always sin and can NEVER be condoned by God nor is and can only be repented of!

E S Blofeld

27 March 2014 at 14:49  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Pete Skett said...

"Any comparison of consensual homosexual marriage with paedophilia belies the most blatant homophobia which demands repentance."

No enough data so far Pete. However, the data we have is so far is not looking good. E.g. a teenage girl or boy growing up in a "non standard household" (I.e. where the parents are not married heterosexuals) are around 11 times more likely to suffer abuse.

There is plenty data emerging indicating that gays are more likely to abuse in the order of 15 to 25 times that of heterosexuals. Since "married" does not mean exclusive or monogamous for most gays one would assume that the data would show a similar trend.

If you are saying that Gays need to repent. I would agree with you.

Phil

27 March 2014 at 17:35  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

27 March 2014 at 17:46  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

27 March 2014 at 17:49  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

27 March 2014 at 17:51  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Blowers, a good point:

"Ernst has never come across a repentant ex homosexual that said..'Being called a F*&%, S%$£, D$%^ H"&%, A*%$ B*^$^& suddenly made me realise, I was actually wrong and needed Christ in my life, like all those kind believers telling me so in no uncertain, harsh terms!!!

However, they're equally unlikely to change if we go around affirming the 'orientation' and quietly looking the other way. Jesus didn't mince His words about sin.

And what is this thing where some people seem to want to declare themselves the greatest sinner of all time? Inverted pride? And does this make homosexuality somehow okay or less wicked? Is there no recognition of a differential in gravity between particular sins? Abusing someone verbally, whilst sinful, is surely of a different order to murder. Yes?

27 March 2014 at 18:11  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Happy Jack said...

Blowers, a good point:

"Ernst has never come across a repentant ex homosexual that said..'Being called a F*&%, S%$£, D$%^ H"&%, A*%$ B*^$^& suddenly made me realise, I was actually wrong and needed Christ in my life, like all those kind believers telling me so in no uncertain, harsh terms!!!

However, they're equally unlikely to change if we go around affirming the 'orientation' and quietly looking the other way. (How could Ernst disagree?)

Jesus didn't mince His words about sin.(but He also showed that the sinners will get to heaven way before the pharisaical who rejoice that heaven will not be filled with those 'sorts'. Which reminds me...One Day, at last, old Ernst arrived outside the pearly gates to see a multitude of people waiting to enter through the hallowed gates.

On entering he was told that his guardian angel him here was to take him on to meet Jesus. Whilst going along the way, he heard great shouting and excitement from inside a walled area inside heaven. "What's that noise and whose making it", asked Ernst. Well that would be the {...} members, who believe they are the only ones to be admitted by Him.)

And what is this thing where some people seem to want to declare themselves the greatest sinner of all time? (One was an Apostle, the other just a sad old man that cringes each night when he ponders on the life he has led and sins that, by and large, are only known to him and His Saviour but if Christ can scrub down old Ernst and make him clean, why not shout it from the rooftops?)

Inverted pride (Trust you will ask St Paul this when you meet him, lad. See Ernst's answer above. Maybe your salvation has not given you much to shout about to others who are lost..Ernst's HAS as he used to wear the same shoes but much grubbier!!)?

And does this make homosexuality somehow okay or less wicked? (No but continually bashing on at them helps no one, unless you are a Jonah character and want to see them obliterated off the face of the earth? or are we at odds with what Jesus wants to see happen as an outcome...."

1 Now the tax collectors and sinners were all gathering around to hear Jesus. 2 But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.”

3 Then Jesus told them this parable: 4 “Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Doesn’t he leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? 5 And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders 6 and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.’ 7 I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.

The Parable of the Lost Coin

8 “Or suppose a woman has ten silver coins and loses one. Doesn’t she light a lamp, sweep the house and search carefully until she finds it? 9 And when she finds it, she calls her friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost coin.’ 10 In the same way, I tell you, there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.”")


Is there no recognition of a differential in gravity between particular sins? (Of course there is) Abusing someone verbally, whilst sinful, is surely of a different order to murder. Yes? (Indeed) Then are you saying that Homosexuality is therefore worse than murder by it's omission here???

BUT WHERE IS THE LOVE?

If any don't want someone saved from their sins, fine, be a Jonah and rejoice at their intended doom if they stay as they are!

If however, any believe this is what Christ would want, they would be most sorely mistaken and are out of step with Him.


Ernst, Jack Lad.

27 March 2014 at 20:57  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Phil: "There is plenty data emerging indicating that gays are more likely to abuse in the order of 15 to 25 times that of heterosexuals."

But you've never managed to justify that despite being put on the spot in the past. You just peddle your American conservative Christian crap pretty much verbatim without engaging your shrivelled walnut of a brain.

27 March 2014 at 21:22  
Blogger Irv said...

USA - from Puritans to Impure-itans

Any connection between beautiful New England and predicted disasters?
Take same-sex marriage. I would have guessed that a "sin" city (San Francisco? Las Vegas?) would have been the first to legalize it.
Oddly it's been America's birthplace that's wanted to be the first place to end America and its values! It's been a Nor'easter of Perversion (helping to fulfill Luke 17's "days of Lot") that began in (you guessed it) Boston in 2004!
New England has gone from the Mayflower Compact to the Gay Power Impact, from Providence to decadence, from Bible thumpers to God dumpers, from university to diversity to perversity, and from the land of the Great Awakening to God's Future Shakening that'll make the Boston bombings look like Walden Pond ripples by comparison!
The same Nor'easter has been spreading south and as far west as Washington State where, after swelling up with pride, Mt. Rainier may wish to celebrate shame-sex marriage by having a blast that Seaddlepated folks can share in lava-land!
The same Luke 17 prediction is tied to the Book of Revelation which speaks of the cities that God will flatten because of same-sexism - including American cities - a scenario I'll have to accept since I can't create my own universe and decree rules for it.
I've just been analyzing the world's terminal "religion" that has its "god," its accessories, its "rites," and even a flag. It's an obsession that the infected converts are willing to live for, fight for - and even die for!
Some claim that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality. Well, when gays have birthdays they don't say what they don't want but say positively what they do want.
Likewise Jesus didn't get negative and mention every sexual variation that He knew mankind would invent, but stated positively that marriage involves only a man and a woman!
Want more facts? Google "God to Same-Sexers: Hurry Up," "Government-Approved Illegals," "FOR GAYS ONLY: Jesus predicted," "Filthy Still Club (Rev. 22:11)," and "The Background Obama Can't Cover Up."







27 March 2014 at 21:30  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Blowers, Happy Jack says of course homosexuality is not 'worse' than murder. To Jack's thinking it is up there with the most grievance sins of lust. Potentially more serious than heterosexual shenanigan's because should the habit becomes entrenched, to the point of being normalised, it brings a whole identity, lifestyle and outlook that is difficult to shed. And of course Jack would prefer it if the way of life and the sin was abandoned. There's no rejoicing here.

And so far as proclaiming ourselves sinners, Jack thinks Paul was countering the practice of the Pharisees who supposed themselves perfect because they followed the written law. It goes without saying we are all sinners. Nowadays it is 'fashionable' to declare oneself a grievous sinner.

And it wasn't a dig at you old boy. Jack can well believe you were a most serious sinner in you hey day! No, its just that it seems such a popular modern practice amongst some worship groups.

27 March 2014 at 21:40  
Blogger Rasher Bacon said...

Ernst old chap - your comments are very necessary.

At one end of the scale (left?) are the people that are all love and no justice - those who can never reconcile all humanity to these words:

There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.'

Or, if they recognise all as sinners, it's as if God has to lump it - learn to live with a problem he created. We have rights - rights to carry on being the sinners we confess our true selves to be. Love Wins. Origen was right. Hell will be emptied into heaven and this is just a short cut.

This is wrong.

At the other end of the scale are a pile of people (Westboro' Baptist Chipmunks will do as examples) who delight in doom, judgement and just punishment, writing it in letters a foot high. I laughed to see a whole range of things God hates on their website recently - "God hates Ireland" being the most surprising.

Even Fred Phelps is excommunicated for suggesting the members of this church should be nicer to each other - the thin end of a wedge where only hating is safe. They eventually hate themselves, and the extreme of this view is that even God isn't sufficiently just for them, and heaven needs to be emptied into Hell.

This is also wrong.

It is also wrong to think that a point somewhere between these extremes is somehow a theologically right answer, and to lob Bible verses at whoever is not at our exact spot on the line. The cross of Christ is none of the above.

Only in Christ's sacrifice - at the cross- do perfect justice and perfect love meet. Paul mentioned another 'none of the above' when he said the Cross is a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to us Greeks. He's God's power and God's wisdom.

We preach Christ crucified - the passover lamb - the perfect sacrifice - my sins are taken out of the way and nailed to the cross in him. Through his death I am crucified to what I was before - dead to anything that is not like him, to my sinful identity. the penalty for sin has gone, and I'm no longer under the power of it. It's as if the prison door has swung open, but it takes a bit of walking on my part to realise sin's power is gone and I can walk in the light. One day I'll be free from the presence of sin and from dragging round my old nature like a corpse.

Sin always was bad and always will be. I want to hate it more as I get older, not less. Sin is got nothing to do with fashion - cannot be graded or culturally condoned as if African violence or heterosexual adulterous lust is worse than homosexuality, or vice versa.

Leftist bishops should never be pitting poverty relief against 'if a man shall not work, neither shall he eat." Neither should right wing bishops (Are there any?) be doing the opposite. The wisdom of God is meant to look a bit different, not be just more of the miserable same.

We should preach Christ crucified, and introduce people to real salvation from a real hell to a real heaven for a real eternity, which - yes, makes a real difference to life here and now.

I see there's now an evangelism task force which includes Rico Tice and others. Is there hope of the Gospel being prioritised now? I fear Justin's apparently hypocritical resistance to same sex marriage for clergy at the same time as his comments against 'homophobia' will hobble his emphasis on evangelism. I hope not, as Christ is the only man that can lead out of this utter mess.

See what happens in the Guardian tomorrow.

27 March 2014 at 22:47  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

There is a storm on Twitter about this, predictably mof the posts/tweets I have seen take the predictable (did I mention it was PREDICTABLE?) line..

'Oh look how terrible these so called christian bigots are! they are so inflamed with homophobic BIGOTRY and HATE that they want to starve children in the name of their HOMOPHOBIC BIGOTRY!!!!'

Meanwhile, millions of us who recognise ourselves to be sinners and try to live penitently and with love because He first loved us will sigh and not cancel any of our standing orders to a wide range of Christian (and other)development and relief charities, without giving much thought to the particular weaknesses and failings of the other sinners who might be involved in the various outreach ventures.

Hopefully some good will come out of this. Perhaps some unchurched people who weren't previously supporting a sponsored child in a dirt poor country or otherwise contributing regularly to an overseas relief and development charity will feel the need to demonstrate their moral correctness by beginning to do so.

Kind regards and good night.

27 March 2014 at 23:17  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Rasher acon

"At the other end of the scale are a pile of people (Westboro' Baptist Chipmunks will do as examples) who delight in doom, judgement and just punishment, writing it in letters a foot high. I laughed to see a whole range of things God hates on their website recently - "God hates Ireland" being the most surprising.

Even Fred Phelps is excommunicated for suggesting the members of this church should be nicer to each other - the thin end of a wedge where only hating is safe. They eventually hate themselves, and the extreme of this view is that even God isn't sufficiently just for them, and heaven needs to be emptied into Hell."

Goodness me, that made me ribs hurt from laughing at the mere imagined thought of the Westboro 'brethren' meeting and greeting, then saying farewell with hate filled expletives and flippin the bird or two fingers at someone wishing them 'God's blessing' or 'can we pray together'.

When you think about the horror of pretend Christians, that live solely to hate others, especially their own real namesakes, what more can you say than that Satan knows how to deceive the weak minded self righteous and give god haters the ammunition they require at any cost or without true comparison!!

"I fear Justin's apparently hypocritical resistance to same sex marriage for clergy at the same time as his comments against 'homophobia' will hobble his emphasis on evangelism. I hope not, as Christ is the only man that can lead out of this utter mess."

Dear fellow, you lost me with this. Are you saying Justin 'TAYLOR' is being hypocritical or have you put the wrong name in and meant His Grace?

Ernst holds the same views that homosexuality and SSM is wrong but doesn't HATE or FEAR gay people..They need to repent as ALL sinners need to, irrespective of the sin. Even the smallest sin imaginable is still sin to God, which caused Him to go to the cross for us?
It is our perspective of sin, NOT God's that needs to be questioned!

Can we have a menu list of easily forgivable sins, the sins that do least harm, so seem not so bad?

The problem is that the heterosexual world has made homosexuality seem acceptable, not the other way around and to do otherwise is then acting in an unlovable to them.

The horror of personal sin is ignored, as God, from His perspective sees it!!!

Blofeld

ps

Is it rasher bacon because you believe in TULIP, which is a famous danish bacon? *Buttie blessings*

28 March 2014 at 01:45  
Blogger Rasher Bacon said...

Ernst

Sorry - I meant Justin Welby. Interview in the Guardian today on this subject.

And you're right about the heterosexual sins desensitising our society. I hear the 'God's not interested in what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms' lie and wonder where it came from - maybe it was from the church trying not to appear judgmental after the 60's.

28 March 2014 at 07:36  
Blogger Rasher Bacon said...

Oh and as further clarity, by Westboro Baptist chipmunks I meant this Lutheran Satire video, which many will have already seen:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EEIqEYP_ZvM

That makes me chortle every single time.

28 March 2014 at 07:57  
Blogger DiscoDevil said...

I won't respond to the hateful comments towards me, but the comments that its perfectly fine to dismiss some parts of the old testament which have been culturally superceded and yet perfectly fine to hang on to some minority discriminatory views supports the point as was making. "God says only marriage is between a man and a woman", please direct me to that phrase....

28 March 2014 at 09:11  
Blogger David Anderson said...

The parable is based on a fundamental fallacy - that the only way to help children in the Third World is through World Vision.

There's something pretty twisted about a parable that casts champions of adopting needy children, such as Taylor and Moore, in the role of Pharisees, simply because they refuse to kow-tow when World Vision capitulate to the pressure to follow the homosexualist agenda.

28 March 2014 at 10:19  
Blogger Rasher Bacon said...

Here we are - we perhaps ought to take the headline with a pinch of salt as the author's previously expressed desire for that outcome may add colour to what was said.

Guardian article

Not

28 March 2014 at 10:21  
Blogger Galant said...

@Rambling Thanks for your response.

I think maybe my point was missed though. If I may re-word the questions slightly:

1. We're considering why Christian would end their support of the needy through a Christian organisation that adopts a serious theological error. The first question, then, what is the importance of the organisation's theology or stance in a work of caring to which the theological stance is immaterial? We might try to ask/answer the question of why a Christian would support an orthodox Christian organisation rather than an atheist or heretical organisation doing the same work? (The specific reasons why?) This seems crucial to the debate.


A second question, to those who seek to cast a bad light upon those who end their support of WV, might be to ask whether/why it is proper to criticise such individuals if they are actually transferring their donations (for whatever reason) rather than cutting them off completely?

And lastly, for those who defend the right and responsibility of individuals to end support in such circumstances, is there not still a very serious question/situation to be resolved regarding the nature of a donor's commitment to the individual(s) whom they have begun to support? One might ask, primarily, whether the answers to questions 1 and 2 sufficient reason to justify the termination of the lifeline to the little ones you have already forged? And if so, one would then need to ask what is the best, and most God-honouring way of terminating that support. A question I've not heard many asking.

There are very serious questions on both side of this, vital matters of principle and theology but also practical matters of commitment, faithfulness and compassion.

We must be sure we're asking all the right questions. God is watching.

28 March 2014 at 12:48  
Blogger William Lewis said...

Hello DiscoDevil

You said:

"... the comments that its perfectly fine to dismiss some parts of the old testament which have been culturally superceded and yet perfectly fine to hang on to some minority discriminatory views supports the point as was making."

In fact the "minority discriminatory views" that I think you may be referring to are established in the New Testament as well. For instance in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Paul says:

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practise homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

So we see that those who practice homosexuality are unrighteous or "not right with God". As you can see there's a (not exhaustive) list of other things (sins) that will make us not right with God and, in fact, we are told that we all fall short of this righteousness. The good news is that we can be forgiven these sins if we repent (turn away from) them and accept Jesus' solution to the problem (the cross).

You also said:

" "God says only marriage is between a man and a woman", please direct me to that phrase...."

I don't think that exact phrase exists, but God does describe marriage. For instance in Genesis God says:

"Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh."

and in the New Testament Jesus (whom we believe to be God incarnate) affirms this in Matthew 19:

"He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."

and, in fact Jesus strengthens the notion that sex is only for this union of one man and one woman (one flesh) when he warns against adultery and lust in Matthew 5:

"“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Strong stuff, no?

28 March 2014 at 12:53  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Happy Jack says the 'battle-line' has been marked out for the advancement of this agenda. How long until same sex *marriages* become mandatory for the Church of England?

One Father Cain, 50, announced his engagement to his partner of 14 years, Stephen Foreshaw, 40, and his intention to *marry*, despite his Church ruling this is unacceptable for ordained clergy. The poor soul even had to "justify" his blatant disobedience to his bishop.

“I don’t really want to be the public face but I have been made so angry and upset that I believe it is a matter of justice to stand up and say: ‘This is wrong.’”

Sounds familiar - its all about promoting justice and equality.

“It is not a recognisable form of ministry to condemn people."

Sounds familiar - its not a sin anymore and to say it is condemnation.

"This" his protestation "is meant as a positive gesture not as an act of rebellion."

Sure.

"This decision effectively forces priests to discriminate between gay and straight couples, which may in itself be an illegal action."

Discrimination, is it? Check your BCP and Canons.

“Realistically we will need some test cases to clarify the true extent of the law, and that’s what I’m prepared to go through if it will help clarify the situation.”

Sow the wind; reap the hurricane.

28 March 2014 at 13:05  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Phil R @ 19:35

I think I began this particular strand of the thread (inadvertantly) in reponse to Johhny R's assertion (15:10) that it would be a cold-hearted God who instilled homosexual desire and then declared its expression illicit.

My intention was not to equate homosexuality and paedophilia (I don't), but to question that all our desires (sexual or otherwise) come from God.

Homosexual, adulterous and paedophilic desires all exist, and all are forbidden by God.

So either God is cruel for instilling such desires and then forbidding them; or such desires are not from God.

Sex isn't really the issue at all. The issue is the concept that, "God made me the way I am."

Take the statement as it stands, and you have the denial of Original Sin. Substitute 'Nature' for 'God' and you have determinism.

28 March 2014 at 13:38  
Blogger The Explorer said...

For the unbeliever,of course, there are other options. The Bible may say it, but so what?

Either:

a) The Bible is simply ancient bigotry, since God does not exist.

b) God and the Bible need to evolve to keep up with sophisticated modern humanity. (ie, I can rip out all the bits I don't happen to like. After that, God's beliefs are admirable: they coincide with mine.)

28 March 2014 at 14:04  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Explorer, Happy Jack says God may have attended an 'Equality and Diversity' training programme recently.

28 March 2014 at 14:23  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Happy Jack:

If God (nearly said 'He'), hasn't, they'll be on God's case.

Otherwise, He/She/It will be out of a job.

28 March 2014 at 14:45  
Blogger Len said...

It was actually 'satan' who instilled homosexual desire then pointed out to God that homosexuals had broken God`s law and should be punished for it...
Neat trick what?.
The God came to Earth took the homosexuals punishment (and everyone else`s )so that none who put their faith in Christ should suffer punishment...

Of course if you reject Christ then its back to square one...

28 March 2014 at 16:16  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Explorer

Thanks for the interesting viewpoint

Phil

28 March 2014 at 16:54  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Danjo

Walnut brain!

It seems to be part of the course when Atheists have lost the argument to attack the person not the argument. There is a name for this "but my walnut brain" clearly cannot remember it!

Phil

BTW is walnut brain a milder insult that peanut brain etc?

I do however, believe that there is ample data to show that there is a strong correlation between non heterosexual marriage and abuse. Children who do not grow up in a household with both their married biological parents are many tens of times more likely to be abused, do less well in school, have poorer health, have a lower household income, have sex at a earlier age, are more likely to experiment with homosexuality or other unnatural sexual activities, are more insecure, are less self confident, are more likely to commit suicide or self harm, are more likely to take illegal drugs, are more likely to break the law and end up in prison and are more likely to pass on this destructive pattern of behavior to any children they have care of including any children they have care of via schools or clubs and activities like Scouts and Guides.

A long list. The rates vary from between 2 to 50 times more likely. No I will not waste my time quoting all the sources. Do your own research.



28 March 2014 at 17:15  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

With a welfare bill at 120 billion.

Lets assume that one in every 6 is on welfare in the UK. That is a cost of £12000 each per year or around £6000 per working family

Except we borrow it.

What will happen to these millions when the rug is pulled from them as it must? Who will they blame? At the moment the Atheists are busy dismantling all that is good about society, Christian values are mocked and the welfare bill is enormous. (4 times the Defense budget).

Who will they look to blame for the mess, the lies and their wrecked lives?

Phil





28 March 2014 at 17:25  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Happy Jack says don't be so riduclous Len. There's so much wrong with this Jack doesn't know where to start:

"It was actually 'satan' who instilled homosexual desire then pointed out to God that homosexuals had broken God`s law and should be punished for it..."

All sin is really is a misuse of human attributes God put in us when He created us. The desire for sex needs directing because it can descend into lust. Satan tempts man, he doesn't put sin in man.

"The God came to Earth took the homosexuals punishment (and everyone else`s )so that none who put their faith in Christ should suffer punishment..."

Agreed but what do you say to the manor woman who has been "born again" and who believes homosexual physical sex is acceptable? Or that it is sinful but God has saved them?

Putting one's faith in Christ means 'taking up the cross' and resisting sin. If not then surely the 'deal' is off.

28 March 2014 at 18:51  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Happy Jack

"Agreed but what do you say to the manor woman who has been "born again" and who believes homosexual physical sex is acceptable? Or that it is sinful but God has saved them? "

You know that not what being "born again" actually means. It is a complete rejection of your old life. Think about the three people who asked to follow Jesus and Jesus' reaction to their excuses. The God of the Bible demands everything from you with nothing held back.

That's is what Atheists hate so much about the God of the Bible. They are OK with you worshiping a God, but not the God of the Bible. (See the foaming of the mouth of DanJo and others above and in other blogs)

They hate the God of the Bible. Because we only have regard for him. Nothing else is important to us so we cannot be controlled by fear of losing what we have on earth. So they can hate us, persecute us etc, but they cannot control us.

Make no mistake, deep down they hate us for that. Forget the Muslims, 99% of Christians murdered over the last 250 years, have been killed by atheists creating their perfect society.

Phil

28 March 2014 at 19:24  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

Galant @12.48

May well have missed your point slightly...issue re blogging in general.

I have nil to add other than to say that you have IMHO asked some good questions.

1.There is a clear Biblical imperative to relieve poverty, famine, disaster and ignorance.

2. God detests sexual immorality.

3. The Christian's duty is to obey God even when people call us rude names.

The above three assertions are non negotiable. How we handle thrm,,and ourselves, in a fallen Christ-rejecting world, that's where the difficultyblies.

Wise as serpents, innocent as doves...

28 March 2014 at 19:46  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Phil: "That's is what Atheists hate so much about the God of the Bible. They are OK with you worshiping a God, but not the God of the Bible. (See the foaming of the mouth of DanJo and others above and in other blogs)"

Foaming at the mouth? You bloody drama queen.

Listen up, you can worship what you want as far as I am concerned. I've said time and time and time and time and time and time again here, I fully support Article 9 of the ECHR.

28 March 2014 at 21:05  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Phil: "Make no mistake, deep down they hate us for that."

One only needs to read religious-oriented articles in papers like the Telegraph and the Mail to see where most of the hate really comes from. There will be lots more of it this weekend too, I expect.

28 March 2014 at 21:08  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older