|
Post by moritz on Nov 25, 2009 9:38:20 GMT -8
Anyone interested in what your fellow Christian brethren in Europe are currently up to? Here are two reports from the last few weeks that stood out to me. 1. The leader of German Protestantism is now a woman – and on top of it a divorced one:First female bishop elected to lead German Protestants October 28, 2009 By Anli Serfontein
Ulm, Germany, 28 October (ENI) The Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD) has elected Bishop Margot Kässmann to be its new leader, the first time that a woman has become the highest representative of 24 million German Protestants. The decision was made on 28 October by the EKD's highest governing body, its synod, meeting in Ulm, southern Germany. Fifty-one-year-old Kässmann, who is divorced, is the youngest ever chairperson of the EKD council, and is the successor of Bishop Wolfgang Huber, who is retiring at the age of 67. The EKD is the umbrella organisation for 22 regional Lutheran, United and Reformed hurches. It accounts for most of the country's Protestant Christians. Kässmann has been bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Hanover since 1999. The general secretary of the Lutheran World Federation, the Rev. Ishmael Noko, praised Kässmann's election.
Source: www.ekd.de/english/News-news_091028.html 2. The Swedish protestant church now allows gay church weddings:Church of Sweden says yes to gay marriage 22 Oct 09 11:10 CET
The Synod of the Lutheran Church of Sweden has come down in favour of church weddings for homosexuals in a vote held on Thursday morning. The decision, which is based on a proposal from the church’s governing board, means that the Church of Sweden will conduct wedding ceremonies for both heterosexual and homosexual couples.
The proposal was approved by 176 of 249 voting members.
The decision comes just three days after the 30th anniversary of the date when homosexuality stopped being classified as a disease in Sweden.
“The Synod’s decision takes a stance in favour of an inclusive view of people. Regardless of whether one is religious or not, this affects the entire social climate and the view of people’s equal value,” Åsa Regnér, head of the Swedish Association for Sexuality Education (RFSU) - the country's largest gay rights group, said in a statement.
In June, the church board took the first step towards permitting same-sex marriages by submitting a petition to the Church of Sweden Synod – the church's highest decision-making body.
The board proposed the church continue to perform wedding ceremonies following new legislation which came into force on May 1st and grants same-sex couples in Sweden the same legal marriage status as heterosexuals.
Current church regulations will likely continue to apply in practice, with some alterations, such as replacing “man and wife” with “lawfully wedded spouses” when a homosexual couple is married.
Individual pastors would also still be able to refuse to perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples.
Since 2007, the Church of Sweden, which counts around 74 percent of Swedes as members, has offered gays a religious blessing of their union.
The ruling by the Synod, which has 251 delegates - two of which were absent from Thursday's vote, puts Sweden among the first countries in the world to allow gays to marry in a major church.
Representatives from the Catholic and Orthodox churches in Sweden, however, were disappointed by Thursday’s decision.
“It is with great sorry that we receive news that the Church of Sweden’s Synod has today decided to wed same-sex couples that it will be referred to as marriage. This is a step backwards, not only from Christian tradition, but also from all of the major world’s religions views of what marriage is,” write Vicar Fredrik Emanuelson of the Catholic Church and Father Misha Jaksic, coordinator of the family of Orthodox Churches at the Christian Council of Sweden (CCS), in a joint statement.
“We don’t wed same-sex couples in our churches and faith communities because doing so stands in clear opposition to the church’s tradition and to our entire view of creation.”
In moving ahead with the decision to perform same-sex marriages, the Church of Sweden also ignored concerns expressed earlier this year by the Church of England in a strongly worded letter to Swedish archbishop Anders Wejryd that the move could lead to “an impairment of the relationships between the churches”.
Church of England spokesperson Steve Jenkins confirmed that relations between the two churches may be headed for a turbulent phase in the wake of the decision.
“Those concerns remain,” he told The Local, referring to the letter from English bishops Christopher Hill and John Hind.
He added that he didn’t know of any plans by the English Church to issue a formal statement in response to the Church of Sweden’s decision.
Source: www.thelocal.se/22810/20091022/ Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Nov 25, 2009 22:35:53 GMT -8
Really? In Europe? How shocking
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Dec 9, 2009 3:23:54 GMT -8
Really? In Europe? How shocking Uhm, okaaaaaay... Why would it be shocking? I think those reports are remarkable and worth reading, because they raise awareness for the wide spectrum that is Christianity. They are particularly interesting to keep in mind, when it comes to discussions about the role of women in the church or gay marriage. I do think it is important to be aware that Christians elsewhere in the world approach such matters differently. And it would be interesting for me to know, what they are basing their ways on theologically. The reports are also possibly instructive when it comes to discussing secularization and the image of Christianity.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Dec 9, 2009 20:15:33 GMT -8
It's not shocking, that was sarcasm actually. The reason it's not shocking is because the bigger and older denominations in Europe don't even resemble Christianity much at all IMO. But don't be too offended, it's even worse in America according to this observation: "Christianity started out in Palestine as a fellowship; it moved to Greece and became a philosophy; it moved to Italy and became an institution; it moved to Europe and became a culture; it came to America and became an enterprise." -Sam Pascoe
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Dec 9, 2009 21:50:50 GMT -8
Wow. What a quote. Ouch, but some hard truth there.
|
|
ben
Advanced Member
Posts: 115
|
Post by ben on Dec 10, 2009 19:28:27 GMT -8
I'm still going through Steve Gregg's lectures on Church history and also reading Pagan Christianity. Chris, I think you hit it on this one.
|
|
|
Post by Margot on Dec 10, 2009 23:29:19 GMT -8
And it would be interesting for me to know, what they are basing their ways on theologically. Yeah, me too.
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Dec 11, 2009 2:28:33 GMT -8
It's not shocking, that was sarcasm actually. Yeah, I know. I just didn't get why you chose "shocking" out of the list of possible sarcastic remarks. It seemed to insinuate that I thought these news would actually shock anyone here, while in reality I'm well aware that you all know Europeans are more liberal than Americans in general. Anyway. The reason it's not shocking is because the bigger and older denominations in Europe don't even resemble Christianity much at all IMO. But don't be too offended, it's even worse in America according to this observation: No offense taken at all. I left the club years ago. As for the question of which Christian denominations actually resemble Christianity.... this is a dead-end discussion. You stated your opinion and if you now ask a Swede Protestant, he will say the contrary. Who decides? God. But that's not helpful, cause God is a pretty silent fellow, as far as I can tell. He won't help us here. So while you are entitled to believe that you are a true follower of Christ while most European denominations aren't rersembling Christianity, I'm still stuck with the question of what Christianity is to begin with. And I can't help but noticing that Christianity ultimately stands for nothing. Or to be more accurate: that Christians make Christianity stand for nothing, by covering the entire spectrum of scripture interpretation and presenting fundamentally contradicting lifestyles and conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Dec 11, 2009 10:19:23 GMT -8
moritiz wrote: Actually, to the Christian, He is not silent on the issue. He left us His own sayings and example of Christianity in the person of Christ. Jesus is the sole authority (on any issue) in Christianity. you wrote: How I wish I could believe that . But actually I'm quite a miserable failure in that respect to be quite honest. I pose no criticism to the whole of individuals in any denomination, only the ones in authority making un-Christ like decisions and policies for the institution of that denomination. you wrote: You're right, the term has become a matter subject to the eye of the beholder. But in it's most fundamental sense (following Christ), there's no question, His words and actions are recorded. Again, true from the standpoint of a relativistic premise about Christianity. But not from the standpoint of Jesus. You've hit on the crux of the issue here. All Christians are hypocrites (to some extent). But to the extent that they love the truth and seek to obey it, they are at least trying and the bible indicates that they being transformed into the likeness of their King.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Dec 11, 2009 14:11:00 GMT -8
I'd like to add that Christians, like adherents to all religions, can be broadly divided into two groups: cultural/ nominal Christians and personally committed Christians.
I don't think it's that difficult to distinguish between these two groups, and I think it's clear that the second group has a much more genuine claim to authenticity.
Are there differences among personally committed Christians? Sure, lots of them, but I don't think most of of the differences are on the issues that define the faith.
A good, straightfoward New Testament definition of Christian is someone who has repented of their sins, believes that Jesus' death provided for their forgiveness and reconciliation to God, and chooses to submit to the Lordship of the risen Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Dec 17, 2009 13:20:19 GMT -8
Chris: How I wish I could believe that . But actually I'm quite a miserable failure in that respect to be quite honest. I pose no criticism to the whole of individuals in any denomination, only the ones in authority making un-Christ like decisions and policies for the institution of that denomination. We are spinning in circles. Perhaps Swedish Protestants believe it is more Christ-like to grant homosexuals the covenant of marriage than vice versa. Unless you prove the opposite, I think we have reason to assume that the authorities of the big denominations are made of individual believers as well. It is easy to point them out, because their failures might have a deeper impact on their environment. But in the end they are no better or worse than you yourself. And as long as you are aware of the beam in your own eye I think caution is advisable when talking about the mote in their eyes. Actually, to the Christian, He is not silent on the issue. He left us His own sayings and example of Christianity in the person of Christ. Jesus is the sole authority (on any issue) in Christianity. (…) You're right, the term has become a matter subject to the eye of the beholder. But in it's most fundamental sense (following Christ), there's no question, His words and actions are recorded. Unfortunately it’s not that easy and you know it. Regrettably Jesus didn’t leave us any original writings. He was quoted. And these quotes were translated. And every translation is already an interpretation. Single words can make a whole world of a difference. But most importantly: considering the entire amount of things Jesus must have said during his thirty-something years on this planet, only a fractional amount has been written down. Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe in the Bible Jesus doesn’t address the issue of homosexuality, let alone gay marriage, at all. What does he say about the role of women in his church? Had he been explicit on these issues, there would be no debate. The best thing believers can do, is find indirect evidence for Jesus’ opinion and interpret it. But as we can see on the very examples we are discussing, Christians come to different, often contradicting conclusions. Even on this forum, there’s heaps of evidence for this. So I’m back where I started. Josh: I'd like to add that Christians, like adherents to all religions, can be broadly divided into two groups: cultural/ nominal Christians and personally committed Christians. I don't think it's that difficult to distinguish between these two groups, and I think it's clear that the second group has a much more genuine claim to authenticity. Are there differences among personally committed Christians? Sure, lots of them, but I don't think most of of the differences are on the issues that define the faith. A good, straightfoward New Testament definition of Christian is someone who has repented of their sins, believes that Jesus' death provided for their forgiveness and reconciliation to God, and chooses to submit to the Lordship of the risen Jesus. This post is slightly missing the point I was making. I’m not confused about a technical definition of Christians. I’m rather wondering what Christians stand for. But now that we are here, you can tell me where personal commitment begins.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Dec 17, 2009 21:34:09 GMT -8
Moritz, You can spin in all the circles you wish, the Bible is very straight forward on the issue of homosexuality. There is no ambiguity. This is not an in-house debate. Ad Hominem Tu Quoque simply won't do here. It's not about the "beam" in my eye or theirs, it's about truth. you wrote: Yes, how reckless for the founder of a religious movement not to write anything down. Instead, He leaves it in the hands of a bunch of uneducated ill reputes so that people have to choose to believe their witness. Then again, come to think of it, there is this one small promise God made: Jer 31:33 I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. NKJV I've heard many testimonies from former gay Christians that they knew they were wrong and self-deluded, looking for teachers that tell them what they want to hear. The assertion that Jesus never spoke against homosexuality, so therefore the matter is up for debate, is a desperate argument from silence. He never spoke against child porn or beastiality either. The rest of the Bible is very clear and He did speak very plainly on the matter through his appointed apostle Paul and OT passages. It takes some real scripture twisting (or exclusion) to say otherwise. Also, Jesus gave a clear positive teaching on marriage, why does he need to cover all the things that marriage isn't? This is faulty induction. Yes, no doubt there are many matters in scripture to legitimately debate on. But this doesn't put all debated subjects on equal ground. Homosexuality is not one of those ambiguous matters we can agree to disagree on*. If God explicity names something an "abomination" and "shameful", what's there to debate? In my mind, Christians that perform gay marriages are not more "Christ-like", they are blaspheming God. *This of course assumes agreement on canon and authority of scripture.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Dec 17, 2009 22:28:39 GMT -8
Back to the original post, I'd have to say that your 1st example (that of a divorced woman leading the German Protestants) is much more of an in-house debate (depending on the reasons for her divorce) than the second one (gay church weddings), which directly contradicts Scripture*
*churches that do so, of course, have long ago jettisoned a belief in the Inspiration of Scripture.
|
|
|
Post by Margot on Dec 18, 2009 7:05:41 GMT -8
One thing we know for sure is that she has a good name...
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Jan 8, 2010 15:23:47 GMT -8
One thing we know for sure is that she has a good name... ;D She is actually a pretty compelling character as far as I can tell. As a non Christian, I'm not amused by the fact that she is actually reaching people over here and probably strenghening the position of the protestant church. But I can't help liking her. She is very down to earth, totally lacking the air of assumed moral superiority that is being displayed by soooo many Christians. Her way of argumentation is very factual and gets along without all the weird assertions. That's also refreshing.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 9, 2010 12:14:10 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Feb 27, 2010 3:49:29 GMT -8
The time of Margot Kässmann as leader of German Protestants is already up: Church leader Käßmann resigns for driving drunk
Published: 24 Feb 10 10:04 CET Updated: 24 Feb 10 16:13 CET Online: www.thelocal.de/national/20100224-25463.html
Bishop Margot Käßmann, the head of Germany’s Protestant churches, resigned on Wednesday after being caught driving drunk over the weekend.
Käßmann said she no longer had the moral authority to comment on issues such as the war in Afghanistan, which she has sharply criticised.
“On Saturday I made a serious mistake that I deeply regret,” she said at press conference in Hannover. “But I cannot overlook that fact that my office has been damaged and my heart tells me very clearly I can’t stay in office with the necessary authority.”
Käßmann said she would step down from all positions effective immediately aside from her job as pastor of a congregation in Hannover.
Her decision to resign came only hours after Protestant church council leaders publicly gave their support to Käßmann.
The 14 members of the Evangelische Kirche Deutschland (EKD) council backed the bishop during a teleconference on Tuesday evening, they said.
Käßmann has their “undivided confidence” to make a “decision over the path that will then be pursued together,” the council said.
She was pulled over on Saturday evening after running a red light in the Hannover city centre. She was found to have a blood alcohol content of 1.54 per mill, public prosecutor Jürgen Lendeckel confirmed on Tuesday.
The bishop, who was driving a church vehicle, apparently smelled of alcohol, and police asked her to undergo a breathalyser test. Well over the legal limit, Käßmann was taken to a nearby police station for a blood test.
“I’m shocked at myself,” Käßmann told Bild. “I am aware of how dangerous and irresponsible drunk driving is. I will, of course, confront the legal consequences.”
A church spokesperson told news magazine Der Spiegel that Käßmann’s blood alcohol content was 1.1 per mill, not 1.3 per mill as initially reported by Bild. The former is at the threshold of the legal limit, while the amount of 1.54 per mill as confirmed by the state prosecutor constitutes being “absolutely unfit to drive” according to German law.
Meanwhile Hannover police told the magazine that they had taken Käßmann’s driver’s license and begun an investigation into the matter.
Margot Käßmann became the first woman to lead the 25 million members of Germany's Protestant churches in October 2009 after the majority of the synod voted in her favour.
Käßmann has proposed a radical course of reform for the EKD, which suffers from shrinking congregations and revenues. In addition to streamlining the clergy, she plans to increase the church’s profile and improve strained relations with Catholics.
Since taking her leadership post she has called for Germany to withdraw its troops in Afghanistan, calling the military action there "unjustified."
In 2006 the mother of four was diagnosed with breast cancer, but has since recovered.
She also divorced her husband of 26 years in 2007, a decision that sparked initial reactions varying from “open criticism to the point of malice, contempt and hatred,” as she described it in a memoir published last September.
The EKD was founded in 1945 as a multi-denominational federation of Lutheran, Reformed, and United Protestant church bodies. After Germany’s reunification, the EKD combined both East and West German Protestant churches in 1991. Too bad, but she took the right consequence in my opinion. She never made bones about being fallible; everybody seemed to respect her precisely for the way she identified her own flaws and dealt with them in dignity. It is much like her not to have searched for excuses now. But the damage to her office was done. It is remarkable however, how much support she received: prominent drunk drivers usually receive a pretty bad public bashing.
|
|