The Pope and Politics

I think it is hysterical that the media is trying to make a big push for women and gays with a new pope. How “primitive” John Paul II was on both issues (NOTE: I’ve heard very few talk about married priests).

The fact is, other than married priests, the Pope is on solid Biblical ground to deny the ordination of women and to deny the sanctity of homosexual relationships. In fact, only those Christian denominations that have become Christian in name only accept homosexuals and few authentically Christian denominations allow women deacons — even fewer allow women preachers. Those that do allow women preachers are increasingly on the march to destruction as authentic Christian denominations. Why? Because the books of Timothy make clear that women should not be bishops (also meaning elders or priests). Timothy also says that women should not be Deacons, though there is some debate as to the specific word used because, supposedly, the clear prohibition on female bishops is a different word from the that used to deal with Deacons. All said, however, the general thinking is that both are the same word.

The problem with the modern church, including the PCUSA, United Church of Christ, Methodists, Episcopalians, etc. is that they’ve decided it is time for God to change for them. They’ve rejected the idea that they should change for God. Mighty progressive of them, and also wrong. No wonder these denominations are shrinking while true Christian churches — those that treat the word of God as literal — are growing. His Holiness believed in the literal word and his successor will too, despite what the media might like.

One comment on “The Pope and Politics
  1. Excellent post. I have often wondered how religions can justify changing doctrine in favor of what the “now” says is right, good, popular, okay, etc. If God is the same “yesterday, today, and forever” then permission to practice homosexuality and ordaining women to the priesthood would then imply that God is not the same as in biblical times.

    I find it ridiculous for people to suggest that the Bible is not for now, that miracles and prophets are for times past, and that God no longer speaks to mankind through revelation. How easy it is to believe something that has already occurred–Christ’s visit to the Earth–or things which are to come–Christ’s second coming–and yet we practically deny the existence of God today.

    I remember reading an article a few years ago about a church that paid their yearly membership dues. The leaders of that particular church group were contemplating dropping their membership because the leaders of the parent organization were considering allowing women to become priests. Good for them because true doctrine doesn’t change as it is based on eternal truths.

    There is also a commercial on television right now that suggests all churches other than the one advertised deny blacks, homosexuals, mixed-race marriages, etc. to worship God. How distasteful that a church would stoop to such ugly tactics to prove their point. Shouldn’t they instead advertise messages of love, hope, happiness, eternal perspective, the meaning of life, families … ?

    Although my religion does not condone or allow in its houses or worship or at its activities displays homosexual behavior, it does not exclude individuals who believe they are gay from worship.

    Women will never be preachers, priests, deacons, etc. in my church because, as you have stated, such is not as God intended. Instead it raises women on a pedestal for their most sacred roles as cocreator, nurturer of children, helpmeet to the family patriarch, and other such talents and gifts women are blessed with that bring humanity and joy to the world. At one time I questioned the role of women and thought it was beneath my abilities, however, I soon came to understand through prayer, pondering, and scripture study the wonder and awesome responsibility I have. I came to believe that men and women are equal partners with separate responsibilities. That which I can accomplish and am designed for is that which my husband cannot, and vice versa. There is duplicity of ability, but their are marked differences in men and women that complement each other and bless both man and woman and child.

    That brings me to another point about single parenting and homosexual parents … by divine design our bodies are meant to be paired man and women to create children. It seems the practice of homosexuality is practically a denial of divinity in the union of man and women, and the divinity of the family. Still, even with technology, homosexuals cannot accomplish creation of a family without the opposite sex. Does that not speak to the to ultimate “proof” that homosexuality is not compatible with reproduction even if you took God out of the equation? Man and women, as I said before, are meant to compliment one another, and it is the same in raising healthy and productive children. I do not imply that healthy and productive children have never arisen from single parents. I simply mean to suggest that our society will continue to crumble morally as we move away from the divinely designed structure of marriage and family. Children, although better nurtured in most cases by a mother (but not all cases), are still better off with both parents. They need what comes from both parents and not just one.

    Well, that is enough soap box for today. You really just struck a cord with me about doctrinal changes by today’s religions.

Comments are closed.