Being a minister's wife

balletshoes

Torry_Quine wrote: »

I did realise that the church officer and member of the session were the same person but wrongly that it was your father. However my point about being judged still stands, your father was a church member so must have been a Christian.

in name, since he joined the church, yes I suppose he would "count" as a Christian. But he only joined the church because my mum asked him to.

Torry_Quine

balletshoes wrote: »

in name, since he joined the church, yes I suppose he would "count" as a Christian. But he only joined the church because my mum asked him to.

I didn't want to assume but did wonder. Don't people have to make a declaration of faith to become a church member?

balletshoes

Torry_Quine wrote: »

I didn't want to assume but did wonder. Don't people have to make a declaration of faith to become a church member?

i'm pretty sure you're right there TQ - I'm almost positive I would have repeated something like that when I joined at 15 as well, but it was just words to me.

coolcait

Torry_Quine wrote: »

Thanks for that. I don't think it's clear to many how dreadful that phrase is. It's really beyond anything I thought to ever read here.

I am always open to debate my beliefs and be challenged.

I had thought that Nicki's interpretaton of it was a personal one, but perhaps it is an interpretation that is taught by evangelical churches?

I have explained the context in which I quoted it Matthew 23, and "that phrase" in some detail already. That is my belief and understanding of it. And that it the sense in which I quoted it.

"hypocrite' is not a nice thing to be called. That is why I acknowledged up front that it would be difficult for you to hear it.

If your understanding of the phrase "whited sepulchre" is the same as Nicki's then I can understand why you were so upset, and I can assure you that I did not use the phrase in that sense.

In terms of debate, you have quoted Paul to support the views you have expressed on this thread. But, what did Jesus say?

Nicki

I'm leaving now too, because it has moved far away from OP's original question, and turned into a nasty hate campaign against TQ. Given that the OP was trying to find out how members of a C of S congregation would feel in her circumstances, I think it is shameful that someone who was prepared to be honest about how she would feel and to explore the reasons for it, should have been subjected to a barrage of abuse, some of it calling the legitimacy of her faith into question by those who don't even share that faith!

As for coolcait, she has quoted the mildest translation of the "whited sepulchre" passage she can find. There are many different versions depending on which bible you are using, which go a lot further. (http://biblebrowser.com/matthew/23-27.htm). Had she genuinely not wished to cause offence, using the term "hypocrite" would surely have been a better choice, carrying with it far fewer connotations? Instead, she maintained her original choice over a significant period of time, and extended it to another poster!

coolcait

Nicki wrote: »

I'm leaving now too, because it has moved far away from OP's original question, and turned into a nasty hate campaign against TQ. Given that the OP was trying to find out how members of a C of S congregation would feel in her circumstances, I think it is shameful that someone who was prepared to be honest about how she would feel and to explore the reasons for it, should have been subjected to a barrage of abuse, some of it calling the legitimacy of her faith into question by those who don't even share that faith!

As for coolcait, she has quoted the mildest translation of the "whited sepulchre" passage she can find. There are many different versions depending on which bible you are using, which go a lot further. (http://biblebrowser.com/matthew/23-27.htm). Had she genuinely not wished to cause offence, using the term "hypocrite" would surely have been a better choice, carrying with it far fewer connotations? Instead, she maintained her original choice over a significant period of time, and extended it to another poster!

I don't agree with anything you have said here, although I accept your right to express it.

If it had occurred to me that people would see a phrase from a Bible passage where the words 'hypocrisy' and 'hypocrites' are repeated, yet interpret it as "suggest[ing] that they are both inherently evil and instruments of Satan, disguised as church goers to undermine the true believers"...

then I would have clearly stated that I was posting the phrase in the sense given in the Bible chapter: 'Hypocrisy'

I didn't know that some people would interpret it as being about 'instruments of Satan' etc. and I still donlt know where that interpretation has come from.

Please clarify who has 'called the legitimacy of another person's faith into question' - other than those who have questioned the legitimacy of the OP's husband's faith because he is married to someone who doesn't share his beliefs.

I have nothing to add to the reasons why I quoted Matthew 23. I disagree with your claim that the chosen translation makes any difference to the fundamental meaning of Chapter 23.

Your link doesn't show anything that is particularly stronger than the translation I used. If anything 'lawlessness' is milder than 'wickedness'...

Where is the translation you were using when you wrote your first post about your understanding of the meaning of 'whited sepulchres'?

The intepretation of the chapter, however, can be very different. Reading through the interpretion provided in your link, I completely disagree with it. I disagree with the tangents it takes, the links it chooses, and its overall thrust.

The reference to 'Papists' is offensive in itself. And it makes me think of this part of your post:

"subjected to a barrage of abuse, some of it calling the legitimacy of her faith into question by those who don't even share that faith!"

It is clear that a number of posters have a very different interpretation of Matthew 23 from mine. It seems that this may be due to the way it has been taught to them.

I've acknowledged that difference, and explained my interpretation of Matthew 23, which underpins my references to "whited sepulchres".

The question is, are you - and others - prepared to accept that there is a difference in interpretation and beliefs?

Your post here suggests that you haven't reached that stage.

P.S Woah! How many cookies and stuff does that link have?! Clicker beware!

coolcait

scottishlass72 wrote: »

I'm very much in favour of gay rights (as is my husband) and we would want to be part of a progressive church. If I were to participate in the church I would love to find a way of helping young gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people come to terms with their identities and find acceptance and friendship. I'm afraid this would be very much frowned upon however. Would it be possible?

This is an interesting paragraph, which I have thought about more than once in the course of this thread.

Jesus of Nazareth, called the Christ, 'consorted' with many groups who were ostracised/shunned by those who followed the religion he took from birth.

Prostitutes, tax collectors, lepers, unbelievers, pagans...

If we were to have a modern-day Jesus of Somewhere, it is likely that he would 'consort' with LGBT people, of whatever age. And with others who are ostracised by mainstream christianity.

He might even be a she.

Would this modern-day Jesus be welcomed by those who supposedly follow the word he left two millenia ago?

I don't think that even he was confident about that:

Matthew 23

"34 Therefore I am sending you prophets and sages and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town."

A sobering thought, in the light of views expressed on this thread.

(I'm not suggesting that there will be literal killing, crucifying, flogging or pursuing)

coolcait

Torry_Quine wrote: »

{posted by Nicki}I cannot imagine it makes for a very happy relationship where one spouse clearly despises and ridicules a large proportion of the other spouse's client base :cool:

That's a good point as to why a relationship with a non-believing spouse could be difficult if you were a church leader.

In general terms, perhaps. I don't believe that the OP has said anything to suggest that she "clearly despises and ridicules a large proportion of the other spouse's client base :cool:".

Where do you see that?

Thanks again. It is hard to see what is so dreadful about thinking the spouse of a church leader should share their faith.

Slightly utopian, but not dreadful, to think that.

It may become 'dreadful' when it turns into rejecting the church leader, simply because his spouse doesn't share his faith.

Savvy_Sue

balletshoes wrote: »

but on the flip side - I joined the church at 15 I think, my public commitment of faith. The reason? Because my mum wanted me to. It had nothing to do with how I felt about religion or the church. I did it all parrot-fashion, as I did every Sunday at Sunday school etc. Because it was expected of me. Nothing touched me, I don't have the same faith that my mum does, even though I was as immersed in it through my childhood as she was in hers.

I absolutely agree. At my school, it was the norm to be confirmed in the 4th year - if your dad was a vicar or you made a strong enough case you could be confirmed a year earlier, but it was unusual. I refused, on principle, even though by that stage I was sure I was a Christian. But I didn't want to be confirmed just because everyone else was, so I waited.

And then I blew it all by having a believer's baptism in my 20s anyway, but that's another story.

Actually, I'm pleased to see that many of those youngsters have continued to 'keep the faith' even after they've gone to University etc. But if mine had asked to be baptised when their friends were, they'd have had to convince DH and I that they knew what they were doing.

Lunar_Eclipse

Torry_Quine wrote: »

The kind of things discussed after a service for instance such as books read or CDs listened to and favourite worship leaders would be very big clues as to someone's belief.

A clue perhaps, but only a clue. A Christian is simply someone who believes in Jesus as their righteousness. Nothing more and nothing less. Music and books really don't come in to 'beliefs', although I appreciate that they are useful tools in helping people grow in their relationship with Christ. Many Christians don't even go to Church.