News-Record.com

Well, this is the inevitable outcome of BIG government interference in ALL areas of the people's life. Libs sceam to high heaven (well, clouds) when a crache is put up on city property, or a Bible is read in schools, etc., etc. So it would seem only appropriate that the same philosophy they so ardently champion be applied in protecting the Church from government intrusion into matters of policy or doctrine - even though their interpretation is distorted.

This is NOT a criminal matter. It (women's ordination) is a matter of long-standing doctrinal precedent. As such, it should indeed be exempt from intrusive governmental control and coercion. Some may not "like" it, but that is NO reason to coerce churches to tow the government's line. This is precisely why the Pilgrims came to these shores: to escape a state (established) church. There are important and instrinsic scriptural principles involved in the prohibition of women as priests and ministers, whether one agrees or not; the abrogation of which would contravene the conscience of those who hold to them.

Hands off, Uncle Sam!! You've intruded enough already. The non-establishment clause was meant primarily to keep government out of the Church's business. I've been waiting for the liberal feminist elite to attempt to force this issue through court action, like they did abortion. They, and the gay lobby, are fully committed to forcing their perverted agenda, whether it breeches the Constitution or not. Their ONLY concern is their unbiblical agenda, not divine truth and precedent.

So it's okay that good christians in positions of power call this guy nasty names and discriminate against him in numerous other ways?

Somehow i didn't think that was how christians were supposed to act- but Nikos, your defense of this behavior has me convinced I was wrong about christians.

I guess it's the rule that christians are supposed to act like a55 H- - - - and the ones who don't - those who worry about conforming their behavior to the standared of WWJD are freaks, dissenters, and " not true christians" .

Thanks for the lesson- I won't make the same mistake again.

"So it's okay that good christians in positions of power call this guy nasty names and discriminate against him in numerous other ways?"

Did I say that? NO!!!! It's not OK to discriminate and abuse (if it is really true), but it IS Constitutional for church officials to hire and fire as they see fit. It is also fine for those who feel they have been wronged to sue. If there has been a non-religious/ecclesiastical/theological crime perpetrated - like child molestation or embezzlement - then all culpable parties should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

However, if it is a long-standing issue of theological precedent, such as women's ordination, church discipline or aberrant sexuality, then church officials should be free to retain or eliminate employees if their behavior transgresses church spiritual/biblical standards.

Unless this Constitutional principle is upheld rather stringently, liberal government agencies and courts will seek to intrude on the moral and spiritual practices and beliefs of churches, in an effort to MAKE them conform to the latest PC special interest groups. This is one reason they are trying so hard to institute ”hate crimes” into laws, so that they can say that churches are not merely upholding their moral or ecclesiastical tenets, but transgressing the law of the land; thus opening the door to government control and manipulation. It is very transparent – but that doesn’t seem to faze them. ALL they care about is advancing their PC, often amoral, agenda.

Interesting that it was a very liberal denomination that allegedly discriminated against this man.

Apparently you don't realize this guy has NO redress if his case is dismissed by the court pre-trial.

Dumb and defending discrimination: yup, you're a typical " Christian", that's for sure.

I addressed this issue, Alice - Read my fingers. Even though it is fraught with nuances and overlap, the only answer here is to differentiate between criminal activites and church doctrine/policy. If the former, the courts are appropriate, if the latter, hands off!

Nikos, I believe Alice may have gotten lost in the excessive verbage.

Shalom

Excessive verbiage! Darryl, my friend, it takes a few lines to get a thought going, then a couple of paragraphs to explain and develop. For me, I thought it was rather concise. I am TRYING to pare things down a bit: be patient. Thanks for the advice, though.

nikos,
when i'm done reading your comment(s) i usually understand your point and that is due in large part to your thoughtful and concise explanation(s). there have been several occasions where your response may have been drawn out but for me personally i prefer to hear all that you have to say. if some feel the need for you to 'dumb it down' then perhaps they could just skip reading your posts. i say keep on typing and most of us will keep on reading !

alice it's good to know that you know what quantifies one as a 'good christian'.

Thanks for the encouragement, Buz. I suppose one can always say things more clearly and concisely, and thus more effectively - yet maintain the necessary content to convey the mseeage.

You keep on fighting the good fight also!
Romans 8:37!

Nikos, I hope that my comments regarding concise and clear postings have been interpreted as "dumbing it down" as it appears some have believed. That is/was not my point.

My point can be summized in a line from the movie, "The Last Days of Patton." In that movie, upon Gen. Patton's arrival at the hospital in Heidelberg after what would be the automobile accident that would take his life; Patton is reported to have told a chaplain after praying for him: "Thanks....that was brief.....The problem with most preachers is that when everything has been said, they're still saying it!" I concur with such a statement.

Shalom

PS - Nikos I see attempts being made at condensing and concising the comments. Like any of us, work is always needed.

"Thanks....that was brief.....The problem with most preachers is that when everything has been said, they're still saying it!" I concur with such a statement.

Unfortunately, you have a point, Darryl. I went to a service recently that greatly tried my endurance, time-wise. The preacher had made the point well in about 30 minutes. The next 40 minutes were overkill and generally wasted.

I certainly agree that clarity and leanness are far more effective in communicating the Word than verbosity. My goal is communication, not boring my readers/hearers to death. That's one reason I like to write poetry and koans; they cut to the chase and cleave the fat.

Maybe I should stop now.