Author Archives: MzEllen

•

From the Vatican:

1° With due regard for can. 1378 of the Code of Canon Law, both the one who attempts to confer sacred ordination on a woman, and she who attempts to receive sacred ordination, incurs a  latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.

and

§ 1. The more grave delicts against morals which are reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith are:

1° the delict against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue committed by a cleric with a minor below the age of eighteen years; in this case, a person who habitually lacks the use of reason is to be considered equivalent to a minor.

2° the acquisition, possession, or distribution by a cleric of pornographic images of minors under the age of fourteen, for purposes of sexual gratification, by whatever means or using whatever technology;

§ 2. A cleric who commits the delicts mentioned above in § 1 is to be punished according to the gravity of his crime, not excluding dismissal or deposition.

On first glance, it would seem as though the Vatican is reserving the more severe punishment for ordaining women, rather than child rape.

I think I see it a little bit differently.  With this wording, Rome has the opportunity to deal with both of these issues in a right way...whether that happens remains to be seen, since they don't exactly have the greatest track record of dealing with pedophiles.

The first (ordaining of women) is punishable with excommunication.  "We're done, you're gone, it's over."  The people involved are no longer under the authority of Rome and Rome has no hold over them, spiritually or earthly.

The second (sex with a minor) may be punishable with defrocking and being turned over to the secular authorities.  This means that there will be earthly consequences (prison, perhaps) and they may no longer be in a leadership position within the church.

This also means that (unlike excommunication) they are still under the authority of Rome, which means that the Vatican can have some direction and it leaves the door open for repentance...penance...forgiveness...restoration.

To me, keeping these offenders under the authority of Rome keeps them accountable...and keeps Rome accountable.

•

Is set up a little differently than I remember, but will be nice.

It's an upper, so there are stairs up that don't go anyplace but my unit.  There's a deadbolt both at the bottom of the stairs and the top of the stairs.  What this means is that I can put bike hoods on the walls of the stairs (it's wide enough in two places) and use the hall for bike storage (and I ran it by the landlord and he said ok.)

The bedrooms are a little bigger than I remember, so furniture will fit.  One of my dressers will be in the "front room" - and since I use it for office and craft storage, it's a better place for it anyway.

Plenty of wall space for bookshelves...I need to get comcast out to put in another cable jack.

Lots of kitchen storage, plenty of drawers.  I still have to shovel snow, but I share the duty with the downstairs folks.  I can even park the camper on the property and this is the first landlord who has said "yes" to that.

I'll have to get a little creative with storage, especially camping gear.  I'm going to have a padlock put on the camper door and I can keep most of the gear in there.

Overall, it will work well.

• 1 Comment

•

Preface and Chapter 1

I'll link to this up as I add chapters - it's a good book that gives a different side to the "evolution vs. 6-day creation" debate.

"Biblical Case For an Old Earth" by David Snokes (if you buy through this link, I get a credit - hint, hint)

In the preface,

Snokes introduces the debate in a "orthodox vs liberalism" sort of way and describes how "old earthers" are often portrayed by  those who believe that the earth is (at most) 20,000 years old.

Snokes maintains that a person can be a theological conservative and accept a Biblical case for an old earth.

Chapter 1, "Starting Assumptions"

Snokes starts by telling readers that if he had not studied science, he would not have come to an old earth conclusion...tells us that his interpretation is a "possible" interpretation, not an "obvious" one.  He recognizes that his view may not be popular, and points out that:

It is illegitimate to change our view of the Bible because we want a more popular interpretation.

and then

He poses the question about whether or not it's okay to ever allow experience, history, or science affect or alter our understanding of the interpretation of Scripture.

Examples he used were Galileo...do we allow our understanding of science to affect our interpretation of Psalm 93:1?

Does history tell us that "king" in Daniel 5:1 refers to a viceroy, a "lesser king", and not the foremost ruler of an entire country?  Would we have that understanding, if we didn't have history?

There is a legitimacy to allowing experience to affect our interpretation...that does NOT mean that we should change our interpretation to bow to the prevailing views of culture in order to be with the "in crowd."  It also does not mean that we need to get onto the "slippery slope" and we can avoid that by clearly laying out the boundaries - what is negotiable and what is not.

we would do well to remember that science was founded by Christians who insisted that God is not a great deceiver, that the natural world is ordered by a good God, and that we must reject superstition and hearsay; moreover, that we must subject all truth claims to rigorous examination, even claims of honored church leaders from generations past...

Question: is it legitimate to allow your experience with purported miracle workers to affect the way you interpret passages like Ephesians 4:11 AND 2 Cor. 12:12 that seem to promise signs and wonders?

My answer...maybe not, but it is certainly wise to allow Scripture to judge whether or not a miracle worker is merely "purported."

•

(this post is "recycled" while I update categories)

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— (Romans 5:12 ESV)

This is not a "Federal Headship" post. This verse does not say because one man sinned, we are all guilty of his sin...it says "all sinned"

We are all touched by death; all of us have known somebody who has died. Some of us have had a very close loved one leave this earth. For some of us, we have the comfort of knowing that we will see them again. Others of us do not have that comfort.

It is not "life" that gives us death.

It is SIN that gives us death

"and, you know, we all will probably die with something sooner or later..." (former Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders)

Yes...we all will "probably" die. All of us that are walking on this earth right now are mortal...we will die

That is the "T". The Total Depravity that touches all of our lives.

The "T" is important because it makes the problem crystal clear. All have sinned.

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in< his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:21-26 ESV)

Without the "T", the need for a Saviour is not so clear. Without the Saviour, the "T" brings hopelessness.

But we do have the "T", we do need a Saviour and we do HAVE a Saviour.

We have hope...

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. (Eph. 2:8-9 ESV)

The "T" makes us understand that we are so steeped in sin that there is nothing we can do to merit our salvation.

The hope is in Christ and in Christ alone. It is by grace, through faith, not of works.

We have all become like one who is unclean,
and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment.
We all fade like a leaf,
and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.
There is no one who calls upon your name,
who rouses himself to take hold of you;
for you have hidden your face from us,
and have made us melt in the hand of our iniquities.(ISA 64: 6-7 ESV)

It is only in our understanding of our need for the Saviour that we are able to reach out for salvation.

•

On another site, a while ago so I don't have the link, somebody was saying that a couple was getting married and one of them had been divorced - she was having a problem with that because there was no way that she could be sure (as part of the congregation) that the couple could Biblically marry.

And did not trust the church leadership to have the discernment to make that call.  I think what the person wanted was for the divorced person to stand up in front of the congregation and explain why they were divorced and make a justification (in front of the congregation) to remarry.

My feeling at the time (and still is) -

  • if that person had sinned and repented, it's none of my business, it's between them and God.  If the church leadership knows the story, that's good enough for me.
  • If the person had NOT sinned, it's none of my business, it's between them and God.  If the church leadership knows the story, that's good enough for me.
  • If I don't trust my church leadership to make the call, it's time to look for another church.

If I NEED to know the "back story" about a couple who is getting married, I need to check my own heart for the potential of gossip and holding repented of sin against a person that isn't even liable to me to start with.

That said:

I also thought at the time that if there was a process within a denomination (somewhat like annulment, but realistically looking at the cause of the divorce)...and issuing a certificate by the church board stating that they had worked with this person through the divorce and found them to be free to remarry, it would (I think) leave a lot fewer headaches and heartaches for a divorced person who wants to carry on with their life.

There is seldom only one "guilty party" in a divorce - and a discerning church board would know this.  If a person has committed "porneia" and repented - wanting to stay married and is committed to faithfulness from that point forward...and the spouse refuses to forgive...

that puts the unforgiving spouse in the position of being the "guilty party."  A repentant person is then held hostage by the sin of their spouse who is divorcing them.

Many divorces are so confused and convoluted that it would truly take a mature and discerning board to sort things out.

I'm not suggesting a "divorce sacrament" - but rather a system by which a board or church leader (trained in counseling) could work through the repentance process (since there is rarely only one guilty party) or the divorce process (if truly innocent) and issue a certificate or letter that the person could carry to their next church (if there is a next church) that verifies to the pastor that church leadership has overseen the situation or process and found the person Biblically able to remarry (and that would vary by denomination.)

We stand before the church and say "we are getting married in the eyes of the Lord."

Why not stand before the church and say, "this union is Biblically dissolved?"