Progressive Christians

The credibility of the Church, in general has taken major hits. Pope Francis just admitted the alarming sexual abuse of nuns by priests/ bishops going back centuries. Evangelical support of Trump is viewed as hypocrisy/ denial of the Gospel.

I'm Catholic but have inlaws who are Protestant including a Lutheran priest [brother-in-law]. My involvement in Dignity [Catholic gay organization] years ago included occasional worship with Integrity [gay Episcopalians]. I appreciate that Lutherans and Espicoplains/ Anglicans are considered "progressive" Christians by how they treat humanity/view science [anthropological insight] .

No experience with other Christian churches but I understand that just about every denomination struggle with sexual issues [same-sex marriage/ clergy]. Many Catholics think priests should be given option to marry [like Orthodox], eliminate sexual abuse of children/ ordain females [ie. Lutheran/ Episcopal].

Any thoughts?

 

I say that if your Christianity makes you want to make the world a better place the way of Jimmy Carter, then that should be praised and celebrated.

My problem is you are going to have a very difficult time defending your religion if you are progressive because of all the regressive passages in the Bible. My advice would be to give the concession that not all Scripture is inspired of God. I'm personally an atheist, but if all Christians did this, my respect for Christians would increase a thousand fold.

I also have a problem with the Catholic and Orthodox churches because of their doctrine that Bishops, Patriarchs and Popes are infallible. That means what they say must go without question. A Protestant Pastor has next to no authority over you (only to pronounce you husband and wife on your wedding or to baptize people). Their job is to merely be your assistant on developing your relationship with God. You don't have to agree with their interpretation on Scriptures. They are just there to help you meditate on them.

 

Not sure that Orthodox view infallibility the same as Roman Catholics. I think the schism followed by the Reformation in the Church was strongly triggered by the notion of papal infallibility/ authority; a doctrine even Catholics have trouble with. My experience with Protestants is limited to 'conservative' reformation communions. Lutherans/ Anglicans worship like Catholics and they practice apostolic succession but layman influence is considerable like most Protestant churches. In studying the issue of 'natural occurrence' several Protestant denominations view homosexuality as a gift from God not a condemnation. Catholics have viewed sex as sinful yet the worst offenders are clergy. Martin Luther, while in Rome, commented that pope Leo vetoed a recommendation that would limit how many boys a bishop could have in the bedroom.

 

I'll be honest with you and admit that while I was raised Lutheran, I do not know what Martin Luther thought on Church (the leaders and the institution) infallibility. What I do know is that Martin Luther and other Protestants declared that Scriptures are the ultimate source of God's authority on Earth and that every believing Christian should/must read the Scriptures themselves. Catholics view Scriptures as ceremonial where they are to be read aloud during worship and that authority in the interpretation rests solely on the Church leadership.

My Dad was Catholic before he converted in order to marry my mother who was and remains a devout Lutheran.

This idea came when Martin Luther objected to the idea of buying your way to heaven. Before the Reformation, the Catholic Church used to forgive sins depending on how much you paid them. Luther objected to this and promoted the idea of reading the Scriptures and living it rather than go grovel before a Priest/Bishop.

I imagine that the Orthodox Churches hold similar views with the Roman Catholic Church, but I need to do more research.

 

I've always seen Jesus as having been progressive.

Of course, he and his apostles had no political power, so we would have to guess what they would have done with the power to make and enforce law.

However, he was outraged by the prelates cashing in on the power of hte church of the time, demonstrated full acceptance of minorities, taught service toward those who are poor, and argued for peace and understnading.

He didn't say anything about abortion which took place in his time and long before. Statements about sexuality were toward fidelity, objecting to baachenalia and wonton behavior.

Frankly, I don't know how to reconcile Republicanism and Jesus.

 

The parents are responsible for the continuing sex abuse of their children by the pedophile priests because they keep pimping out their kids to them. If they stopped doing that then the problem would cease to exist.

 

The Jesus character was a racist and a religious bigot who sponged off of his rich buddies. He set the model for future preachers.

 

It's eye-opening how close Lutherans and Catholics agree doctrinally per years of dialogue. The papal office is viewed as historic validity but Lutherans reject infallibility, a doctrine Catholics didn't adopt until the 1800's and are willing to be in full communion with other Christians [Anglican/ Orthodox/ Lutherans] who deny papal infallibility.

"From Conflict to Communion"
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...doc_2013_dal-conflitto-alla-comunione_en.html

 

Please let me know what he did that was racist.

 

He spoke i parables so that outsiders wouldn't understand his babbling. He called Gentiles swine and dogs. He told his Apostles to stay away from Gentiles and Samaritans. He said that his Apostles would only judge the twelve tribes of Israel. He said that he had only been sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. He never preached to the Gentiles or spoke to them unless he absolutely had to and then it was only a short word or two. If you like him he probably hates you.

 

Links to the actual scriptures on which you base these statements. Others may not share your interpretation or conclusions.

 

Could you cite a biblical chapter where he called Gentiles swine and dogs.

I'd also like to heare about where he told apostles to stay away from gentiles.

I know that in Paul's letters he suggested separation of one of the distant churches where church members were being lured into sin. But, that wasn't Jesus and it wasn't racism.

 

Martin Luther's main issue with the church was the idea that the church simply made up new rules and laws for Christians whenever it was convenient. He felt that the bible was the only true doctrine, and anything else was un-Christian.

He also believed that the church's idea that confession to a priest, or that priests personally living "absolution" was needed to get into heaven was wrong. He believed that faith alone got one into heaven, and that one simply needed to repent in one's heart to be forgiven by god, and a priest isn't needed.

 

According to the Augsburg Confession, holy absolution is a sacrament. Lutheran pastors collectively absolve penitents at the start of the eucharist and also in private confession. Catholics don't practice private confession in the way it was just a few decades ago but many make a confession to a priest before Easter.

 

Actually hes correct.

 

he did not actually call them dogs but used the image in his teachings:

https://www.gotquestions.org/Canaanite-woman-dog.html

https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2837/why-did-jesus-refer-to-gentiles-as-dogs



poor choice of words, in all honesty

 

that tells me that you share his interpretation and conclusion. It doesn't tell me that I should. The links to the scriptures would.

 

That's a tough one for sure. The whole sequence seems quiite contrary to my impressions from the NT overall. But, if Jesus was in Canaan ministering to those there it seems like his reference might not have been directed at Caananites in general, but perhams to something specific to the case in point.

Yikes!

 

You would know that if you'd read the Bible.

 

Wow.So instead of proving an assertion made with a quote, or link or citation, posters instead oblige the audience to have read the material? Here is his quote " He called Gentiles swine and dogs. He told his Apostles to stay away from Gentiles and Samaritans. He said that his Apostles would only judge the twelve tribes of Israel. He said that he had only been sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. He never preached to the Gentiles or spoke to them unless he absolutely had to and then it was only a short word or two" This is a simple matter. A positive assertion has been made with respect to what 'The Bible' says without any link or quote directly from the Bible so that we know what the basis is. Now that you appear to have taken over this cause, how about you providing the direct quotes or links to prove what is now your assertion. Its not my job to figure out where in the Bible you are getting your ideas from. You are the person who knows what you read and where to come up with the assertion If the evidence is, for example John 5:24, then that is what you would cite, quote or link. If you don't know where these scriptures are, or what they really say or mean, you should have kept your mouth shut.

This is not about religion or the Bible, Margot. Its about whether it is my job to prove another posters assertion ( now your assertion) is not true, or his/ your job to prove this assertion is true.

 

“AN OVERVIEW OF THE BIBLE.”Most Theology and doctrines say that Jesus came to the Gentiles too, not just to the Jews. But what does Jesus say in the Bible?

Let me make it clear that Jesus Christ did not come to minister to the Gentiles, nor was His message "the kingdom gospel" sent to the Gentiles. He did not offer the "kingdom of heaven" TO the Gentiles.

The following scriptures support that view.Matt 10:5-7 (NKJ)5 These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: "Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans.6 "But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.7 "And as you go, preach, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.'Matt 15:23-24 (NKJ)23

But He answered her not a word. And His disciples came and urged Him, saying, "Send her away, for she cries out after us."24 But He answered and said, "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."And Paul said:Rom 15:8 (NKJ)8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:Note that in Matt 10:5-7 and Matt 15:23-24 Jesus said He did not come EXCEPT to the house of Israel.

Jesus came to confirm/fulfill all that was written of Him in the O.T. His mission was to the Jews, NOT to the Gentiles. This is what Paul meant in Rom 15:8.This is not to say that God did not have another purpose for Jesus' death on the cross.

His plan was to save the Gentiles and all that would place their faith, trust, confidence and hope in the work of His Son, Jesus on the cross. This purpose was hidden in God and revealed to Paul.

What does Jesus call Gentiles? In the case of the Gentile woman coming to Jesus, he said:It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.So, if you were not a sheep, you were a dog. So, we have dogs, and TWO folds of sheep, i.e. the Jews, and the lost house (and tribes) of Israel.

See Ezekiel 37 .

 

The Jews expected a messiah who was an anointed warrior king like David descended from Jesse and David.. who would be an earthly king.

Jews were not looking for a "heavenly kingdom" or "freedom from sin" since these were not Jewish concepts. Christianity sort of reinvented the Old Testament prophecies... and it gets muddy. Jesus lived and died an observant Jew. He did NOT come to the Gentiles.. In fact, the Jewish expectations of the Messiah was that he would rid them of their enemies.. The Romans and the "others" .. the Gentiles.

 

You are mixing up two different concepts. You are making an argument which I did not on this occasion ask about, not providing substantive proof of what was originally asserted.

 

See three posts above.. You skipped it. I am not mixing up anything. I didn't write the Bible.

 

Another example of progressive Christianity:

"Alabama church removes pew, plaque dedicated to Confederate President Jefferson Davis" https://www.episcopalnewsservice.or...ted-to-confederate-president-jefferson-davis/