Same-sex ‘marriage’ in the Church of Norway

[SyroMalankara]

At the end of the day, you get something like this, with no way to defend it except by becoming atheist or accepting that there is and always has been an authoritative institutional interpreter:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Followers_of_Christ
theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/13/followers-of-christ-idaho-religious-sect-child-mortality-refusing-medical-help

 

[Sy_Noe]

The definition, according to Christ in Mark 10. But in your link’s chart of marriage types in the Bible, none are same gender.

Jon

The point was that the only marriage found in the Bible is not the one in Mk which is the one some like to call “traditional”. Definitions of marriage have changed over time.

Romans refers to natural and unnatural relations. Some would argue it is unnatural for a homosexual to lie with a heterosexual but very natural for someone of homosexual orientation to want to be in a loving monogamous relationship. Some would argue David loved Jonathan more than any woman.

The human Jesus walked the earth in the 1st century. In Mt 24:34 Jesus said that generation shall not pass til all takes place. However many generations later, all has not yet taken place. And many customs from Biblical times have changed since that time. Paul said women were not to speak in churches. Women were to be subjected to men. And the list goes on.

My belief is that the Jesus I know who taught not to judge and to love and to do unto others as you want the world to do unto you, would today, if it was the century He was walking the earth, would approve of gay marriage.

I believe differently than you and I am more than fine with that. As I believe there are many member parts of the same body. Blessings along your journey.

 

[Sy_Noe]

And what of the future? Should they discern God’s will as permitting plural marriages, that is o.k. with you? With all due respect, Sy Noe,that is moral relativism. What may be true for some is not true for others, right? Catholic truth is true for Catholics and Church of Norway truth is true for its adherents. Is that about it? You are very quick to defend every decision made by every mainline protestant church that goes against the teachings of Christ as they have stood for 2,000 plus years. Why is that?

No it is not moral relativism. It is merely a fact that it is only with faith, that we can believe and think we know the truth. For the faithful Catholic that includes faith in men, faith in early Christians that they didn’t get anything wrong, faith in their church’s interpretation. Faith that human leaders have never strayed. I consider what churches teach too. But I am unwilling to place complete faith in any human when it comes to full understanding of God. And that includes myself. I have enough humility not to think I get everything right. But I’m fine with that. As I accept we all have our limitations. We all have finite minds as we walk our faith journeys towards the truth and ultimate understanding of an infinite and all knowing merciful God. He understands our hearts and our minds. So along my journey, I don’t need everything black and white. Others of course do. I’m also not a Biblical literalist. It was written by human writers in a time when they had their customs too. Peace.

 

[Thorolfr]

No it is not moral relativism. It is merely a fact that it is only with faith, that we can believe and think we know the truth. For the faithful Catholic that includes faith in men, faith in early Christians that they didn’t get anything wrong, faith in their church’s interpretation. Faith that human leaders have never strayed. I consider what churches teach too. But I am unwilling to place complete faith in any human when it comes to full understanding of God. And that includes myself. I have enough humility not to think I get everything right. But I’m fine with that. As I accept we all have our limitations. We all have finite minds as we walk our faith journeys towards the truth and ultimate understanding of an infinite and all knowing merciful God. He understands our hearts and our minds. So along my journey, I don’t need everything black and white. Others of course do. I’m also not a Biblical literalist. It was written by human writers in a time when they had their customs too. Peace.

 

[pablope]

pablope;13828165:

Quote:
Originally st

But this is not a church teaching…the church’s teaching is whether to marry a gay couple or not…so which is it…will it allow it or not…which is God’s will, according to the church of Norway?

It has to make a stand…it seems like it refuses to make a stand if it allows both.

So again…which is it…which will is God’s is the priest following?

a). To marry a gay couple

b). Not to marry a gay couple

13828165]

c) A and B. It is allowed but not required by the priests. That seems to be where their discernment of God’s will is at the present.

So according to your reply…it seems God has two wills…one that allows gay marriage and one that does not allow it…

And at the present? Are you saying God changed His will…that was not allowed then is allowable now in God’s will?

 

[pablope]

No it is not moral relativism. It is merely a fact that it is only with faith, that we can believe and think we know the truth. For the faithful Catholic that includes faith in men, faith in early Christians that they didn’t get anything wrong, faith in their church’s interpretation.

Do you see anything wrong with this?

Faith that human leaders have never strayed. I consider what churches teach too. But I am unwilling to place complete faith in any human when it comes to full understanding of God. And that includes myself.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Sy Noe;13828801:

A believer not being comfortable with a teaching is nothing new. In Matt 19: 11:12, Jesus spoke about not everyone being able to accept a word, but only those to whom it has been given. He went on to say the ones who can accept this should accept it.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Do you see anything wrong with this?

 

[Sy_Noe]

Thanks Thorolfr. I should just let you take it from here. You do a far better job than I.

 

[Michael1978]

pablope;13830309:

Sy Noe;13828801:

A believer not being comfortable with a teaching is nothing new. In Matt 19: 11:12, Jesus spoke about not everyone being able to accept a word, but only those to whom it has been given. He went on to say the ones who can accept this should accept it.

Interesting that you quote Jesus here. He is talking about marriage and divorce and that a man who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery. The disciples then say that it would be better not to marry if that is the case. And Jesus says that not everyone is called to a life of celibacy (reference to eunuchs), but those who can accept it should.

If a believer cannot accept or accede to a teaching of the Church, or of Christ, they can hardly be considered a believer, can they?

 

[skeyes]

Father K, I pray that our Lord will give you peace as you cling to your faith in Him. This human action which is certainly causing you terrible angst is at the end of the day alarming and confusing. What we thought we knew for sure, has now become open to choice.
God bless you and all the people you love today and everyday!

In Christ,

Stan

 

[Sy_Noe]

Sy Noe;13830345:

pablope;13830309:

Interesting that you quote Jesus here. He is talking about marriage and divorce and that a man who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery. The disciples then say that it would be better not to marry if that is the case. And Jesus says that not everyone is called to a life of celibacy (reference to eunuchs), but those who can accept it should.

If a believer cannot accept or accede to a teaching of the Church, or of Christ, they can hardly be considered a believer, can they?

He also talked about divorce except in the case of fornication.

Yes they can if they believe Christ Jesus as Savior. In the One Whom breaks down these walls. United in Him we are. And on that note, I am moving on and brightest blessings to all.

 

[pablope]

No I do not put certain faith in myself nor man.

 

[steido01]

Relevant:

ilc-online.org/2016/04/15/opposition-church-norway-approves-sex-marriage/

 

[KjetilK]

It’s actually a breakaway ( well sorta ) from the Church of Norway, and is Confesional

But I seriously don’t know what Church you are referencing. ‘The Lutheran Norwegian Mission’ doesn’t really help to narrow it down.

 

[KjetilK]

Prayers for you…Father K…

Just out of curiosity…what do you mean by this in your post…and I have said that if nothing happens before the new liturgy has been passed (it doesn’t yet exist), which will probably be in January 2017,

Essentially I’m saying that to stay, we demand alternative episcopal oversight. That essentially means two Churches (under one roof).

 

[KjetilK]

The Russian Orthodox Church is closer in doctrine though.

Is it?

 

[FabiusMaximus]

The point was that the only marriage found in the Bible is not the one in Mk which is the one some like to call “traditional”. Definitions of marriage have changed over time.

Romans refers to natural and unnatural relations. Some would argue it is unnatural for a homosexual to lie with a heterosexual but very natural for someone of homosexual orientation to want to be in a loving monogamous relationship. Some would argue David loved Jonathan more than any woman.

The human Jesus walked the earth in the 1st century. In Mt 24:34 Jesus said that generation shall not pass til all takes place. However many generations later, all has not yet taken place. And many customs from Biblical times have changed since that time. Paul said women were not to speak in churches. Women were to be subjected to men. And the list goes on.

My belief is that the Jesus I know who taught not to judge and to love and to do unto others as you want the world to do unto you, would today, if it was the century He was walking the earth, would approve of gay marriage.

I believe differently than you and I am more than fine with that. As I believe there are many member parts of the same body. Blessings along your journey.

With all due respect, this sounds like a stretch. The whole “Jonathan loved David more than any other woman” and that “it is unnatural for a homosexual to lie with a heterosexual” simply appears to be ways to work around uncomfortable verses about homosexuality. The Church has been rather consistent over the centuries on it. I can’t accept that somehow just because we’re living in the 21st century we’re all of sudden more enlightened and have a better idea of what Jesus meant. I don’t subscribe to that.

 

[KjetilK]

With all due respect, and I’m sure you are aware, as part of the decision, bishops and other church officials were granted the right to refuse to officiate homosexual marriages. Priests who do not want to celebrate a marriage between a same-sex couple will still have the right to object. So it’s clear you have the option to remain and not perform legal marriages between 2 of God’s children whose orientation and natural attraction happens to be towards a partner of the same gender.

With all due respect, that doesn’t mean anything substantially. A few days ago, I heard that after the institution of the liturgy (probably in January), I could still, legitimately, proclaim the tradition and biblical view. But that is simply not the case

Of course I can preach that, but when the Church has instituted a new teaching, I cannot preach a different view and claim to represent the Church’s teaching. Even though both priests and bishops have made the claim, two mutually excluding views cannot both be the official teaching of a Church.

As a priest, I preach as a representative of the Church, and of my bishop, and I am in communion - sacramentally AND doctrinally with everyone he is in communion with. If A is in communion with B, and B is in communion with C, then A is in communion with C, if he wants to or not. So unless there is granted alternative episcopal oversight (essentially two communions under one roof), I will have to leave.

My bishop told me that I shouldn’t go, because I’m so young (33). I didn’t answer him, but if I did, I would ask him what my age had to do with it. Practically, I’m at an age where I could easily get a new (and probably better paying) job, if I couldn’t continue (somewhere else) as a priest, and existentially his points were just weird. Did he ask me to compromise my conscience for 30 years ‘because I’m young’?

It reminds me of the scene, in A Man For All Seasons, between Norfolk and Thomas More where Norfolk asks More to sign the declaration, “for fellowship,” whereupon More answers: “And when we die, and you are sent to heaven for doing your conscience, and I am sent to hell for not doing mine, will you come with me, for fellowship?”

 

[KjetilK]

But, of course,…

Jesus (here the Ghost bowed) was a comparatively young man when he died. He would have outgrown some of his earlier views, you know, if he’d lived.

Ironically I’m 33 this year.