Same-sex ‘marriage’ in the Church of Norway

[Sy_Noe]

The fact that, based on the Bible and the beliefs of early Christians including quite eminent ones like St. Augustine, there is nothing wrong with owning slaves and whipping them, that would seem to me to be a big black stain on the history of Christianity. And yet now, slavery is almost universally condemned and is considered by most people to be morally wrong. So the notion that we should bind ourselves to what first century Christians considered to be moral and immoral (including their ideas about sexuality) and that standards of morality shouldn’t change seems rather problematic to me.

 

[Thorolfr]

I’ve been thinking about the phrase “right to object,” in this context and I am confused how it could be a rule actually implemented in any Church without major problems. Say a Pastor rejects a lesbian couple wanting to be married. The couple goes to another priest who accepts same sex marriage and marries them. This couple goes to the previous church with the priest who rejected them and expects communion. Is that priest obliged to give them communion despite the fact he regards what they are doing as a sin? Who is protected by the Church in this case? The congregation whose marriage is accepted or the Priest who has the right to object?

Or have I completely misunderstood the structure of the Church of Norway?

What policies do they have on who can receive communion in the Church of Norway? In my own Lutheran denomination (ELCA), we have open communion.

I just found this for Oslo Cathedral:

Members of all churches and denominations are welcome to join us for the celebration of the Eucharist (Holy Communion / The Lords Supper).

kirken.no/nb-NO/fellesrad/kirkeneioslo/menigheter/oslo-domkirken/apen-kirke/Willkommen/

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

The fact that, based on the Bible and the beliefs of early Christians including quite eminent ones like St. Augustine, there is nothing wrong with owning slaves and whipping them, that would seem to me to be a big black stain on the history of Christianity. And yet now, slavery is almost universally condemned and is considered by most people to be morally wrong. So the notion that we should bind ourselves to what first century Christians considered to be moral and immoral (including their ideas about sexuality) and that standards of morality shouldn’t change seems rather problematic to me.

Are the two at all compatible? Yes the early Church accepted slavery but within the text of scripture and that early Church we see objections to it. The letter to Philemon being the classic example. Slaves in a Christian context were not merely property of the owner but were instead people. Thus the case that Christianity implicitly opposes slavery. There were even fathers who condemned Slavery.

Gregory of Nyssa, Fourth Homily on Ecclesiastes:336,6. I got me slaves and slave-girls. For what price, tell me? What did you find in existence worth as much as this human nature? What price did you put on rationality?How many obols did you reckon the equivalent of the likeness of God? How many staters did you get for selling the being shaped by God? God said, let us make man in our own image and likeness (Gen 1,26). If he is in the likeness of God, and rules the whole earth,and has been granted authority over everything on earth from God, who is his buyer, tell me? Who is his seller? To God alone belongs this power; or rather, not even to God himself.

Even Augustine whom you mentioned had it in his understanding of theology that slavery was against nature. Your comparison with slavery to homosexuality would only work if there was an implicit understanding within the scripture and tradition that homosexuality was right. That doesn’t exist, despite efforts to demonstrate so.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

What policies do they have on who can receive communion in the Church of Norway? In my own Lutheran denomination (ELCA), we have open communion.

Even to those who are in open sin or have heretic views?

 

[Thorolfr]

Even Augustine whom you mentioned had it in his understanding of theology that slavery was against nature.

If Augustine believed that slavery is against nature, then why did he say that a slave owner should whip his slaves under certain circumstances and that God would even be angry if he didn’t?

 

[Thorolfr]

Even to those who are in open sin or have heretic views?

As I just added above from Oslo Cathedral in the Church of Norway:

Members of all churches and denominations are welcome to join us for the celebration of the Eucharist (Holy Communion / The Lords Supper).

kirken.no/nb-NO/fellesrad/kirkeneioslo/menigheter/oslo-domkirken/apen-kirke/Willkommen/

I’m sure that the ELCA is the same. They’re going to leave it up to each individual to decide whether they are fit to come up and receive communion. There is no examination for heresy or sin. Since “members of all churches and denominations” are welcome, they are apparently not trying to decide whether some of those churches, denominations or individuals have heretical beliefs.

In the ELCA, just before communion, we all say:

Most merciful God, we confess that we are captive to sin and cannot free ourselves. We have sinned against you in thought, word, and deed, by what we have done and by what we have left undone. We have not loved you with our whole heart; we have not loved our neighbors as ourselves. For the sake of your Son, Jesus Christ, have mercy on us. Forgive us, renew us, and lead us, so that we may delight in your will and walk in your ways, to the glory of your holy name. Amen.

And then our pastor says:

As a called and ordained minister of the Church of Christ, and by his authority, I therefore declare to you the entire forgiveness of all your sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

If Augustine believed that slavery is against nature, then why did he say that a slave owner should whip his slaves under certain circumstances and that God would even be angry if he didn’t?

He believed the fall allowed slavery as far as I know. A mistaken view but there wasn’t this whole hearted acceptance of slavery that you seem to think there is.

If we compare that to the attitude towards homosexuality, which whenever it is mentioned it is condemned, there is no comparison.

 

[Thorolfr]

He believed the fall allowed slavery as far as I know. A mistaken view but there wasn’t this whole hearted acceptance of slavery that you seem to think there is.

If we compare that to the attitude towards homosexuality, which whenever it is mentioned it is condemned, there is no comparison.

So if there could be mistaken views about slavery, why must we believe that there could never have been mistaken views about homosexuality?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

So if there could be mistaken views about slavery, why must we believe that there could never have been mistaken views about homosexuality?

I believe with regards to slavery the biblical authors were not mistaken in what they encouraged. Yes they tolerated it, yet we see in Paul a concern not merely to treat slaves as cattle but as brothers. For Paul slavery was a reality that could not be denied so easily, since it was probably true that rich people had slaves. Yet he did not grant Philemon unrestrained power but urged him to be reconciled with his slave as a fellow believer. There is an implicit undertone in Philemon that Paul expects him to do more than he is being asked, that more would be to free his slave and let him help Paul. It’s good that we in the west have abolished slavery, its the natural outgrowth of the Christian Gospel even if the Christian Gospel tolerates it’s existence. I think the quote I provided from Saint Gregory Nyssa shows us on deeper reflection how we are to think of slavery even if it is permissible. It doesn’t mean that slavery is good, just that it was an unfortunate reality.

I would argue that part of the Biblical narrative from Genesis to now is that God created us with an intended order. Male and Female being united to produce offspring and live as a family.This is the fundamental image we get in the bible and when people break that image, be it by Polygamy or homosexuality negative consequences follow. The Patriarchs were Polygamous yet they caused great difficulty in being Polygamous, conflicts between wives and their children. Homosexuality whenever it is brought up in the Biblical account is always condemned. We do not find an example of a supported Homosexual relationship. Some like to argue David and Jonathan as such a relationship, yet that is not clear from the text and It can be interpreted more favourably as Platonic.

If we have established standards of marriage in the Bible and all them point to a family unit, Husband and Wife and we have no indications of other views being accepted, why should we think the biblical authors and the Church Fathers mistaken on such an issue? If Homosexuality were moral, surely it would not have been called an abomination and Paul would not have condemned it. The language of unity in the bible often makes use of husband and wife. The church is the bride of the groom Christ. A Bishop is to be the Husband of one wife. When Paul speaks of his right to take a believing lover, he says wife.

Granted I am drawing from inferences, yet I think they are justified against readings of the Bible and Christian tradition which try to insert a foreign element like Homosexual marriage. If the bible and Christian tradition is wrong on this, are they wrong on sex before marriage as well? Are they wrong on adultery? Is Polygamy now to be accepted? What is the Christian sexual ethic we must now learn?

 

[ChaosGamma]

The fact that, based on the Bible and the beliefs of early Christians including quite eminent ones like St. Augustine, there is nothing wrong with owning slaves and whipping them, that would seem to me to be a big black stain on the history of Christianity. And yet now, slavery is almost universally condemned and is considered by most people to be morally wrong. So the notion that we should bind ourselves to what first century Christians considered to be moral and immoral (including their ideas about sexuality) and that standards of morality shouldn’t change seems rather problematic to me.

That doesn’t answer the question I asked though. I asked WHY you believe that slavery is wrong. WHY were the first-century Christians wrong? Why is the idea that standards of morality don’t change problematic, unless of course you find some of those standards to be… immoral. I’m looking for a real answer, not a deflection about how we can’t know anything for certain or that “Honestly, it’s 2016” or whatever. YOU obviously believe that slavery is immoral and I want to know what you base this belief on, since it apparently isn’t the Bible. Is there some other revelation from God that you accept? Some, oh, tradition? A teaching body whose authority you place your trust in? Just because nowadays slavery is “considered by most people to be morally wrong” isn’t a reason. Most people in ancient Rome would have probably had the opposite opinion, that has no bearing whatever on whether they were right to believe that way.

 

[Sy_Noe]

actually you have…you just rationalize you have not…don’t you recognize that you have put your faith in men who say that gay marriage is the will of God?

 

[SAVINGRACE]

You still don’t understand the difference between (Levitical) Ceremonial Law and the Moral Law, do you? Please, do watch the educational video I provided. After you’ve digested the video and the verses I’ve quoted, please respond. It’s poor form to ignore legitimate responses.

:clapping::clapping::yup::yup:…take heed of these wise words Thor and SyNoe.

 

[JonNC]

I believe with regards to slavery the biblical authors were not mistaken in what they encouraged. Yes they tolerated it, yet we see in Paul a concern not merely to treat slaves as cattle but as brothers. For Paul slavery was a reality that could not be denied so easily, since it was probably true that rich people had slaves. Yet he did not grant Philemon unrestrained power but urged him to be reconciled with his slave as a fellow believer. There is an implicit undertone in Philemon that Paul expects him to do more than he is being asked, that more would be to free his slave and let him help Paul. It’s good that we in the west have abolished slavery, its the natural outgrowth of the Christian Gospel even if the Christian Gospel tolerates it’s existence. I think the quote I provided from Saint Gregory Nyssa shows us on deeper reflection how we are to think of slavery even if it is permissible. It doesn’t mean that slavery is good, just that it was an unfortunate reality.

I would argue that part of the Biblical narrative from Genesis to now is that God created us with an intended order. Male and Female being united to produce offspring and live as a family.This is the fundamental image we get in the bible and when people break that image, be it by Polygamy or homosexuality negative consequences follow. The Patriarchs were Polygamous yet they caused great difficulty in being Polygamous, conflicts between wives and their children. Homosexuality whenever it is brought up in the Biblical account is always condemned. We do not find an example of a supported Homosexual relationship. Some like to argue David and Jonathan as such a relationship, yet that is not clear from the text and It can be interpreted more favourably as Platonic.

If we have established standards of marriage in the Bible and all them point to a family unit, Husband and Wife and we have no indications of other views being accepted, why should we think the biblical authors and the Church Fathers mistaken on such an issue? If Homosexuality were moral, surely it would not have been called an abomination and Paul would not have condemned it. The language of unity in the bible often makes use of husband and wife. The church is the bride of the groom Christ. A Bishop is to be the Husband of one wife. When Paul speaks of his right to take a believing lover, he says wife.

Granted I am drawing from inferences, yet I think they are justified against readings of the Bible and Christian tradition which try to insert a foreign element like Homosexual marriage. If the bible and Christian tradition is wrong on this, are they wrong on sex before marriage as well? Are they wrong on adultery? Is Polygamy now to be accepted? What is the Christian sexual ethic we must now learn?

In almost every way, I agree. I would add that I believe what is being proposed is not a Christian sexual ethicat,all, but a secular one. Government can do this if it chooses, but as Pannenberg says, to go down the same gender “marriage” path is outside One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. We are in the world, not of it.

Jon

 

[Sy_Noe]

:clapping::clapping::yup::yup:…take heed of these wise words Thor and SyNoe.

It appears “Thor” had already taken heed and I agree.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13828017&postcount=46

 

[steido01]

It appears “Thor” had already taken heed and I agree.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13828017&postcount=46

I wrote in response to that comment from Thor. Actually, I wrote in response twice.

Instead of engaging with the rather clear Scriptural examples I presented, he sidestepped over to slavery, which I’ll spend only a short time on because there is no need to go down that rabbit hole:

So please explain to me how the issue of slavery fits into the Moral Law/Ceremonial Law scheme? It is accepted in Genesis, Leviticus and other Old Testament books but also in many New Testament books and in the writings of Augustine and other early Christians. It can’t be claimed that the acceptance of slavery was part of the Ceremonial Law that no longer applied after Jesus since early Christians obviously did not see it this way.

This is answered [cheekily] in the video (See the “Hoisted by your own pitardings…” bit). *How *the Hebrews were to treat their slaves was, indeed, part of the Ceremonial Law; slavery itself, in its many historical forms, is a human invention that is generally a product of our sinful nature, either directly or indirectly. It can’t be neglected that “slavery” also served a more benevolent and humane purpose in the days of Israel than it did by the time Rome was running the world.

Colossians 3:22: Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything, not only while being watched and in order to please them, but wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord.

It’s unfortunate that you post bits of Scripture, but neglect the verses surrounding your prooftexts. What else does Paul say in his various letters? Let’s read:

Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for their wrongs, and there is no favoritism.

Whoa! Paul is giving a dire warning to those who would mistreat those under their care (including slave owners): you may profit now, but you flirt with righteous repayment for your actions! He also writes more to those in bondage than to any of the other groups he names, reassuring them that their hope is not in the rulers of this world, but to a different Master. And let’s not forget what Paul writes just a few sentences earlier:

Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.

Now, either Paul has multiple personalities and enjoys contradicting himself (and he’s duped all Christians for approximately the last 2000 years), or you’re missing something in the text. Care to guess where my money is? Hint: it’s not in earthly treasures or status.

And please don’t say that these slaves who were owned by Christian masters were treated well since the writings of St. Augustine, St. John Chrysostom and others speak of whipping slaves and did not oppose this as long as it was within limits.

Thorolfr;13833310:

Augustine was a sinner both before and after he converted to Christianity. Mercifully, he, St. John Chrysostom and I share a forgiving Savior. But I also don’t know the context of his comments. Was he talking about ‘whipping’ figuratively? With regard to lazy workers? With regard to bloody rebellion? Even Jesus took up a whip during His ministry.

That’s all I’m willing to spend discussing slavery, because it is not a proper comparison to gay marriage. Slavery, even in its most benevolent form, exists because of our sinful condition – it is not from God. Marriage, in its purest form, was present from the sixth day of creation – it was God’s intention, even before the Fall.

This is confirmed by Christ Himself when He says in Mark, “What God has joined, let no man separate.”

If you’d like to continue this discussion, let’s move to a new thread. Father K doesn’t benefit from our tangentially-related posts.

But just one more time, for fun: youtube.com/watch?v=4r2m_cffRjI&app=desktop
​

​

 

[SyroMalankara]

This is essentially a sola scriptura / self-interpretation argument. What does the Church (what does any of Apostolic Churches say) say - in regard to slavery and homosexuality?

None of the Churches take this new-age/progessivist/post-christianProtesant view on homosexuality and all state that slavery is to be condemned. Enough said. None of the Apostolic Churches interpret the Bible the way that the new-age/progessivist/post-christianProtesant present it.

Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Russia, Ethiopia, India, Armenia, Ukraine, Georgia + pretty much 90% of Christianity have spoken!

 

[JonNC]

This is essentially a sola scriptura / self-interpretation argument. What does the Church (what does any of Apostolic Churches say) say - in regard to slavery and homosexuality?

None of the Churches take this new-age/progessivist/post-christianProtesant view on homosexuality and all state that slavery is to be condemned. Enough said. None of the Apostolic Churches interpret the Bible the way that the new-age/progessivist/post-christianProtesant present it.

Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Russia, Ethiopia, India, Armenia, Ukraine, Georgia + pretty much 90% of Christianity have spoken!

If it is post-Christian (a point with which I disagree because there will not be anything post-Christian), then it is no protestant, since protestant refers loosely to western non-Catholic** Christian** traditions.

Jon

 

[SyroMalankara]

If it is post-Christian (a point with which I disagree because there will not be anything post-Christian), then it is no protestant, since protestant refers loosely to western non-Catholic** Christian** traditions.

Jon

You mean the so called mainstreams are still Christian in essence? If so, has the term lost its meaning?

 

[pablope]

Before Catholics reach a point on their faith walks when they go around proclaiming they know truth, they first had to put faith in men.

 

[JonNC]

You mean the so called mainstreams are still Christian in essence? If so, has the term lost its meaning?

What I am saying is true protestants are Christians. I’ll leave the judgement of the mainstreams to others. I am willing to say that marriage as some of them describe it lacks the Christian essence.

Jon