Ex Champion tennis great Margaret Court publicly declared and commented on SSM, not just once but followed up about it being a sin against God and should be opposed. Then things went mad.
The internet outrage went full steam and anyone having a similar view to the former champion was, like she was, labelled intolerant and/or a bigot.
It probably got all the attention it did due to the previous cream pie incident with QANTAS CEO Alan Joyce. Without that it may have been a lesser ripple.
Interesting the angles people use to promote their position. Wrongly citing the Bible to muzzle Court was common, especially the bit about women keeping quiet in church. The bit they really needed was the section of Scripture that outlines the qualifications of the office of pastor. That bit about it needing to be a married man with children, sober of good standing etc. That would disqualify Mrs Court straight away. There is the odd irony and contradiction of some possibly atheist people using the wrong parts of the Bible they don't believe in the try & quieten a "pastor" yet whilst they use that Scripture they dismiss all others that condemns SSM & homosexuality. There is a fact that remains - There is no passage anywhere in Scripture that says its ok & not a sin. So oddly the non believer will condemn Mrs Court for her clear contradiction of her chosen faith yet ignore her stance on SSM being 100% in alignment with Scripture. Scripture the atheist doesn't believe in.
Then is came along from a noted theologian...who carefully read the Bible wrong and journos and news services plugged into the opinion piece not checking to see if this "theologian" applied proper in context exegesis.
Check here to read the article Paul Murray cited
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-02/margaret-court-marriage-bible-isnt-meant-to-be-read-so-literally/8583412
Interesting that Internet Frenzy said often that Mrs Court should follow the Bible as it states women should be quiet in church. Interesting that the article of Robyn Whitaker doesn't mention that, her being a woman and all.
Robyn's opening line reads "Margaret Court is wrong to claim marriage is "a union between a man and a woman as stated in the Bible",as she did in her open letter to Qantas, or that a "biblical view" of marriage is between one man and one woman, as she did on Channel Ten's The Project last week."
Robyn's opening line and the wheels fall off. She focuses on marriage, goes to ancient & superseded practice of polygamy mention different languages but still avoids the key foundation Biblical point that Margaret Court made. The Bible states homosexuality is a sin, not just a sin but an abomination before God. There is no passage in Scripture anywhere that shows that edict from God has been changed, modified or done away with. If indeed that were the case, or if mankind were able to do that to suit his culture or his times then God will have to go back & apologise to everyone in Sodom & Gomorrah.
So Robyn fails in the first sentence but being a clever academic I'm sure she'll have a well worded, well crafted retort. Fact remains, in the Christian faith SSM cannot be supported.
Now should Mrs Court be a pastor in a church giving sermons? No.
1Timothy 3 The overseer then must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, an able teacher,
Sorry Margaret, you shouldn't be preaching, but as far as Scripture goes you are properly in alignment with the Bible goes on SSM & homosexuality.
Robyn Whitaker is teaching on Bible scripture as an academic. She's teaching people in opinion pieces on her view on Margaret Court & SSM and how she feels its aligns with Scripture.
She might do well to read 1Timothy2 from start to finish and see what the Bible says about women teaching the Bible and God's Word. Well so too could Mrs Court.
They're both off track and well away from the go to manual, the Bible. Interesting though as Robyn Whitaker will be held aloft by some journos as the go to expert now.
Robyn Whitaker's article went onto say
"In the New Testament, Jesus said nothing about homosexual relationships or marriage, except that people should not divorce.
This teaching is widely ignored by many Christian denominations today."
That's because He didn't replace God's view on homosexuality. It was an abomination & still is. This odd twisting of the New Testament is not uncommon, especially by those straying from proper in context exegesis and wanting to implement a new brand of Christian faith that contradicts the Scriptures.
Here another wheel falls of Whitaker's wagon...
"When Paul writes "there is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28), he presents an ideology profoundly disruptive of patriarchal family structures, gender roles and hierarchy."
Wrong Robyn, you're twisting Scripture again. That passage is about how there is no divisions left when you accept Christ and become a Christian, you are in equal status before God, your role does not change and its not a tearing down of the role of marriage to allow SSM.
Robyn, you're beginning to look like a highly educated Scripture Twister. Might need to go check out Pirate Christian Radio.
Robyn says this means a break down & break away from traditional marriage because as she thinks "Jesus' own mother, who is an example of faith in the church's tradition, appears to have left her husband and other children at home to follow her itinerant son."No evidence of her ever leaving her husband in the Scriptures. No evidence of her abandoning other children either. This assertion opens a possible claim that Christ must have been all ok with a women ditching her marriage & children. Utter silliness, very dangerous deception
Robyn continues...
Not all opinions are of equal weight. While Margaret Court remains one of the most phenomenal sportswomen in Australian history, this does not qualify her as a spokesperson for Christianity on marriage equality.
Nor does being a self-appointed leader of a church she created.
Well Robyn you're correct, not all opinions are of equal weight but if you're making a comment on the Bible, opinions are left out completely otherwise moral relativism lets you make up whatever feels good and you're ignoring completely what the Bible says & meant.
Proper in context exegesis...
Sporting prowess does not qualify a person to anything. The real authority on Christianity is the Bible, not a tennis champion nor an academic failing proper in context exegesis. The church Mrs Court created is kinda Christian looking, but if it has female pastors, its a false church. Its not that hard, its just based on Scripture. Her "church" may be right on any number of doctrine matters, including SSM & homosexuality but its still a false church.
Keep going Robyn...
Indeed, if Ms Court applied the literalism with which she reads Genesis to the whole of the Bible, she'd find herself in hot water, since 1 Timothy 2:12 explicitly forbids women teaching or having any authority over men.Are you teaching men on Biblical matters Robyn? Mrs Court fails the Biblical qualifications for pastor, but that's not connected to her stance on other matters. She can be wrong on one key thing by teaching men and being a pastor, but that's no basis for saying she's therefore wrong on everything.
Just saying...another correlation/causation rabbit hole for the easily fooled.
This kind of culturally bound ideology is precisely why biblical scholars and mainstream Christian churches do not adhere to a literal interpretation of this ancient and diverse text.Mainstream? Don't be concerned about fringe vs mainstream...numbers don't make it proper exegesis. There is no sensible scholar or pastor who takes Bible text as requiring to be 100% literal in interpretation. There's hundreds of different literary devices in use in the Bible. Some are factual historical accounts, some are parable, some are metaphors, some are shadows, types some meanings are hidden in the meaning of the names. Some need to be taken as literal, some don't and cannot.
Qu - Do you take the Bible literally?
Ans- No I take it seriously and try to read it as it was intended.
To criticise and expect a higher level of discourse from a public figure is not bullying nor persecution.
To be fair, Robyn's discourse is an opinion, possibly fuelled by what she thinks and/or feels. It certainly isn't based on proper in context exegesis. By her interpretation Marriage was over when Paul preached to the Galatians and we could all morph the construct into whatever made man happiest. That's what she's suggested.
There is nothing inherently Christian about the so-called traditional arrangement of the nuclear family.Man & one wife? Might need to stop the academic studies and lecture rounds & pop off to a good Bible study. Your Christianity has stray from the Scriptures. I'm only assuming you're Christian.
You can find that model in the Bible if you look for it, but it is not the dominant view. Nor does the Bible condemn what we understand to be loving, mutual LGBTQI relationships today.Well it does actually. You need to study up. If God is OK with LGBTQI relationships He will have to go back & apologise to all the people of Sodom & Gomorrah.
Odd really straight marriage is not inherently Christian but there's nothing in the Bible saying SSM isn't. Hmmm...making the narrative fit the mindset requires omissions and twisting.
Then Robyn goes closer to her core beliefs...hint it isn't Bible based.
Concepts of family and marriage have evolved and changed throughout human history, including within the church.People & cultures do evolve...but the Bible says God's Word doesn't. Some covenants have replaced others but there wasn't an abomination list that gets slowly edited as humans & so called churches evolve. There's a reason Paul wrote 7 letters to 7 churches. He'll have to apologise to those that strayed from God's Word...or perhaps they lived in a different time and the evolution wasn't really off the mark then(?)
Modern Christian families can be made up of gay couples, straight couples, single people in community, childless adults, foster parents, step-parents, grandparents and biological parents.Correct...except for the Gay Couples bit. Robyn needs a chapter and verse that specifically outlines that homosexuality is no longer an abomination. Now this is the key bit...abomination. Not a law, not a bit of sin, not part of a covenant, not a cultural thing, not a regional tradition...to God it's an abomination. If Robyn can find the things that are an "abomination" to God, then put them in a list, then cite passages of Scripture where any of them are now all ok with God...well that'd be a Good start.
Robyn's views are not unique, but they do certainly contradict the Bible.
It is their faith that makes them Christian, not their family structure nor sexuality.Well no the Bible is very clear on what makes you a Christian and very clear what your faith should be. To be Christian you have to repent AND turn from your sins, accept Christ as your Lord & Saviour. Paul has to write to the Corinthians and others to remind them that acting as a Christian every day is difficult but you need to step up and get with the programme. You can't really accept Christ and stay in an adulterous relationship or other sinful ways. Many atheists themselves would be quick and right to say that's just plain hypocritical.
Many Christians are not represented by the views we've recently heard from Margaret Court, nor those espoused by the so-called Australian Christian Lobby.Well Scripture proves Scripture so unless a person or group adheres to proper in context exegesis then they can form whatever views they like, mine is if you're going to be Christian, follow the Bible in a proper way.
In fact, quite the opposite. Christian values of love, justice and inclusion found throughout the Bible are why so many Christians support marriage equality.That may be so, that maybe why those people support SSM, but how does that square with the fact there is no Bible Scripture ANYWHERE that says the marriage is on for 2 consenting people of the same gender?
How do those "Christians" reconcile that abominations weren't a part of covenants, they were abominations. The shellfish one often comes up. easy for me I don't like Shellfish so I don't eat it but its still because that only ever applied to practising Jews and I'm a "gentile". Hard for anyone to be a practising Jew either...there is no Temple.
Robyn had a view, an opinion and a stance. Its not based on Scripture and she had to twist it to sorta make it work.
Mrs Court has a stance that's based on Biblical Scripture but she shouldn't be a pastor.
If you're a Sola Scriptura Christian then Court is right on SSM & Robyn isn't. Court shouldn't be a pastor and neither Court or Whitaker should be teaching on Scripture.
Robyn Whitaker's take is one of the very small "l" liberal persuasion where academics apply deep learning to the Scriptures, but miss much of the teaching or leave it quite open to selective interpretation. Many journos anr/or hard nose anti Christians will lock onto Robyn Whitaker's opinion as they support SSM but more importantly she's used as a Bible authority AND she's saying Court is wrong and SSM is very ok.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
No comments:
Post a Comment