What exactly is a Christian Fundamentalist?
Well, I am not very good on all these labels because I tend to have a natural resistance to being labelled. I have been called a fundamentalist Christian once but I am not convinced that I am. I see a fundamentalist as someone who takes everything literally rather than consider figurative or metaphorical interpretations as well.

Is it good or not to be a fundamentalist?
Well, the following little adventure into the depths of Biblical mysteries will perhaps provide some kind of answer - but you must make up your own mind, of course.

I had an interesting discussion on a forum recently where somebody posted three verses from the King James Version of the Bible and coupled them with a news item that he had found somewhere. The verses were those that I have copied out in full just here to the left underneath the picture I made. Yes, that is my own best Bible, by the way - a leather bound NIV study one I happen to like. No, it isn’t my baby - he’s now much bigger than that.

The news item was about it being possible for male breast tissue to lactate, and it was suggested that men were recognized as capable of breast feeding back in Old Testament times as the verses quoted would seem to indicate. Well, I am aware that male breast tissue has been known to produce milk under certain circumstances, but most men will probably be relieved to know that it is rather a rare and unusual kind of thing all the same. It is far more usual for the better-equipped mother to concern herself with that kind of thing, the father usually having other matters to attend to instead. And of course, many men make that perfectly clear in the wee hours of the night as junior’s hunger pangs make themselves known.

Anyway, I decided to look into the matter a little more deeply and here is what I found.

The term “nursing father” does not appear in the New King James Version (NKJV), New American Standard Bible (NASB) nor the New International Version (NIV) - and probably not in some other versions which I didn’t bother checking.

First of all, the Numbers 11:12 verse…

In the NKJV the words used are:
Did I conceive all these people? Did I beget them, that You should say to me, ‘Carry them in your bosom, as a guardian carries a nursing child,' to the land which You swore to their fathers?

In the NASB the words used are:
“Was it I who conceived all this people? Was it I who brought them forth, that You should say to me, ‘Carry them in your bosom as a nurse carries a nursing infant, to the land which You swore to their fathers’?

In the NIV the words used are:
Did I conceive all these people? Did I give them birth? Why do you tell me to carry them in my arms, as a nurse carries an infant, to the land you promised on oath to their forefathers?

Now the reason for this…
The Hebrew word from which “nursing father” came is denoted H539 in Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary and it means:

A primitive root; properly to build up or support; to foster as a parent or nurse; figuratively to render (or be) firm or faithful, to trust or believe, to be permanent or quiet; morally to be true or certain; once (in Isa_30:21; by interchange for H541) to go to the right hand: - hence assurance, believe, bring up, establish, + fail, be faithful (of long continuance, stedfast, sure, surely, trusty, verified), nurse, (-ing father), (put), trust, turn to the right.

The term “nursing fathers” in the Isaiah 49:23 verse is the same, so the same kind of interpretations arise. They can be checked out right here.

So I think it is probably safe to say that the term “nursing father” is meant in a figurative sense, not literally after all - especially in light of the mother’s better biological equipping and the natural progression of hormonal changes stimulated by childbirth itself.
But the fundamentalist position might well propose that men really did feed their infants once upon a time. Is the fundamentalist right? Does the Bible really suggest that? You decide.

In the Job verse, you get some very intriguing variations on a theme.
The Job 21:24 quote is different again, and also quite interesting (well, to me anyway). Here is what happens to it - and note the male preposition so it is referring to the chaps:

Remember, in the KJV the words used are:
His breasts are full of milk, and his bones are moistened with marrow.

In the NIV the words used are:
His body well nourished, his bones rich with marrow.
Footnote: The meaning of the Hebrew for this word (body) is uncertain.

In the NASB the words used are:
His sides are filled out with fat, And the marrow of his bones is moist,

In the NKJV the words used are:
His pails are full of milk, And the marrow of his bones is moist
(For “pails” the Septuagint and Vulgate translations read bowels; Syriac translations read sides; Targum translations reads breasts.)

The Hebrew word from which “breasts” came is denoted H5845 in Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary and it means:

From an unused root meaning apparently to contain; a receptacle (for milk, that is, pail; figuratively breast): - breast.

So yet again, we are probably supposed to understand the use of that word is figurative rather than to take the literal meaning.
Or are we? Maybe not… if you are a fundamentalist - I don’t know.

So all you blokes who are looking on here, just what do you make of that?
Are you willing to try giving your wife a bit more of a hand in this special way, especially in the wee hours of the night, when the next new baby comes along?
After all, it would be very Biblical of you, you know.

Anyway, I believe I am not so much a fundamentalist (if that is a pure literalist) but more of an evangelical and very definitely a conservative as opposed to a liberal revisionist type.
We use a lot of terms in Christian circles - preterist, young earth creationist, calvinist, etc, etc.
I just think of myself as a Christian (and at least I know what I mean) and leave it at that. Labels both help and hinder us to understand each other. Really, I am a one off - myself. Er, whatever that is.

More information on Fundamentalism

The following beliefs were originally considered to be fundamental to Christianity:
~ Inerrancy of the Scriptures
~ The virgin birth and deity of Jesus
~ The doctrine of substitutionary atonement
~ The bodily resurrection of Jesus
~ The bodily second coming of Jesus Christ
Subscribe to the above and you are a Fundamentalist.

These days the term “fundamentalist” is often used as a perjorative for conservative “right-wing” Christians… another reason why I am not too keen on labels that detract from seeing the whole person with all their differences that make each person unique.

***sigh***

I did something that I wish I had never done. It made such an unbearable impact on me and has become the substance of nightmares, those all too real for comfort. Just one unwitting mouse click then a distraction that took my eyes away for just a moment. When I looked up I saw in full progress a video clip of an Islamic infidel beheading. A beheading - the neck of a real person being sawn right through with all the writhing and the gore. I wont go on, and nor did the video because I stopped it right away. But not fast enough for the grissly scene to have a deep effect on me as the head came off. This was something that had happened for real. It is something that keeps happening - for real. It is something that simply must be made to stop.

Recently Pope Benedict received a letter, the full text of which can be found here:
Open Letter to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI

I am both troubled by this letter, and heartened by it - two opposed reactions which has me wanting to treat it very cautiously. I will comment on both reactions for others to know what are my concerns.

1. The part that heartens me

An impressive list of significant Muslim intellectual and political figures have put their signatures to this letter - 38 of them in all. These people have now committed themselves to the statements that they have made in the text of the letter. These statements present a less aggressive form of Islam with condemnation for the violence that we are seeing on a daily basis (yes daily - click here and scroll towards the bottom of the page) and by signing their names to this letter they may be held accountable to the statements they make as facts about Islam.

That these people have come together may be the beginning of an authoritative voice of Islam that can moderate the thinking and actions of those who behave outside the claims to the nature of Islam as made in this letter. It may be the beginnings of a movement towards reformation of Islam, something to be greatly encouraged.

2. The part that troubles me

Islam has embedded within it a sanction that permits deception - the principles of al-taqiyya and kitman which allow lying in certain circumstances, one of those being to effect a peace or reconciliation.

Imam Abu Hammid Ghazali, one of the most famous and respected Muslim theologians of all time, says: “Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible.” (Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, The Reliance of the Traveller, translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, amana publications, 1997, section r8.2, page 745)

This subject is discussed in detail here by Vernon Richards in his e-book, Islam Undressed.

There are statements in the letter which are not supported consistently within Islam and do not stack up with the reality of current world events, nor with the history of Islam.
~ An example is the issue of abrogation of Surah 2:256 (“There is no compulsion in religion”). The signatories to the letter deny its abrogation whereas many other Islamic scholars quoting the Qur’an on the subject do not. Who is right? Even if this surah is not considered abrogated in some quarters, there are a great many other surah which command violence to non-believers unless they recant their own faith and convert to Islam. This surah becomes practically irrelevant in light of all the others.
~ There is the glaring omission of dhimmitude used as a means of “persuading” non-Muslims to convert to Islam through harsh subjugation laws including penalties such as jizya, the extra taxes levied upon them.
~ The one-sided view of jihad plays down the external warring side supported by the Qur’an and well documented here. Historically Islam is well known for its “bloody borders” and offensive wars.

According to one calculation, Muhammad himself engaged in 78 battles, of which just one (the Battle of the Ditch) was defensive. Within a century after the prophet’s death, Muslim armies had reached as far as India in the east and Spain in the west….In the 7th century A.D. Muhammad's Bedouins defeated the Persian and eastern Roman empires, and conquered the Middle East, North Africa, and Spain. This period, referred to as Islam's ‘golden years', is what many Muslims aspire to be restored. The invaders eventually were stopped in the east in 718 at the city walls of Constantinople, and in the west in 732 some 200 miles from Paris. There followed another thousand years of seesaw wars on sea and land before the last Middle Eastern attack on a major European city, Vienna, which was repulsed in 1683. Those who expect Muslims to drop their belligerence toward the West, which has existed since Islam's founding in the 7th century, expect them to jettison core values of their faith - something for which there is no precedent in Islamic history.
Source

It is not proven that Pope Benedict, a learned and reputable scholar himself, made the errors that this letter proposes that he did. We must await the outcome of further dialogue between His Holiness and the signatories of this letter or their representatives. Another view is presented in M.A. Khan’s essay Was the Pope Wrong? and it is worth considering some of the points made there.

My concerns have not yet been addressed by the signatories to this letter. There is still a great deal of ground to cover, and reformation to occur within Islam - if that is possible at all.

The Islamic Agenda is supported by the strategy of Islamicization of Europe published in 1980 by the Islamic Council of Europe, quoted here from the website of Dr Patrick Sookhdeo (International Director of the Barnabas Fund and the Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity. Dr Sookhdeo holds a PhD from the School of Oriental and African Studies, London University and was awarded a Doctor of Divinity by Western Seminary, Portland, Oregon for his work in the field of pluralism.)

Europe is undergoing a rapid process of change as Muslims make their presence felt in politics, economics, law, education and the media. While there is a wide range of attitudes amongst Muslims in Europe, with many who are broadly content with the status quo and just want to live their lives peacefully, others are striving deliberately to drive forward the changes. As a result of the efforts of the latter, Europe is gradually being transformed into a society in which Islam takes its place, not just as an equal alongside the many other faith communities, but often as the dominant player. This is not purely, or even primarily, a matter of numbers, but is more a matter of control of the structures of society. It is not happening by chance but is the result of a careful and deliberate strategy by certain Muslim leaders.

Though the effects are only now becoming noticeable, the planning was done decades ago. In 1980 the Islamic Council of Europe published a book called Muslim Communities in Non-Muslim States which clearly explained the Islamic agenda in Europe. When Muslims live as a minority they face theological problems, because classical Islamic teaching always presupposed a context of Islamic dominance; hence the need for guidance on how to live in non-Muslim states. The instructions given in the book told Muslims to get together and organise themselves with the aim of establishing a viable Muslim community based on Islamic principles. This is the duty of every individual Muslim living within a non-Muslim political entity. They should set up mosques, community centres and Islamic schools. At all costs they must avoid being assimilated by the majority. In order to resist assimilation, they must group themselves geographically, forming areas of high Muslim concentration within the population as a whole. Yet they must also interact with non-Muslims so as to share the message of Islam with them. Every Muslim individual is required to participate in the plan; it is not allowed for anyone simply to live as a “good Muslim” without assisting the overall strategy. The ultimate goal of this strategy is that the Muslims should become a majority and the entire nation be governed according to Islam. (M. Ali Kettani “The Problems of Muslim Minorities and their Solutions” in Muslim Communities in Non-Muslim States (London: Islamic Council of Europe, 1980) pp.96-105)
Source

In light of the statement from the Islamic Council of Europe, consider the reported words of Omar Ahmad, co-founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. In 1998 he addressed a gathering of Muslims in California and urged them not to shirk their duty of sharing the Islamic faith with non-believers, advising them not to assimilate but to be “open to society without melting (into it)”, keeping mosques open so anyone can learn about Islam. He then went on to say that…”If you choose to live here (in America) … you have a responsibility to deliver the message of Islam. Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.” Five years later he denied saying this, the truth of the report was re-asserted, and Ahmad did not follow up. Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for CAIR, made the same point more positively in 2003, saying that if Muslims ever become a majority in the United States, it would be safe to assume that they would want to replace the U.S. Constitution with Islamic law, as most Muslims believe that God’s law is superior to man-made law.
Source

There are clearly mixed voices in Islam, and we do not know yet which will prove to be the strongest. The reality that we see before our eyes - the increasing encroachment of Islam into Western civilization with its attempts to engulf and dominate, combined with the agression and bloodshed, and demands for appeasement - will need to be stopped if we are to believe anything at all of the voices from the other side of Islam.

My concern is that it may not be another side at all, but just another “more gentlemanly” surge of Islam through the efforts of its intellectuals to give us hope when that hope is only an illusion.

I would dearly love to see a reformation in Islam whereby the aggressive agenda is dropped in every respect. My response to that letter was as I described - conflicted. If these 38 Muslim scholars and political figures can make a difference by bringing in a more moderate version of Islam and (this is the essential part) behavioural changes throughout the Islamic world, that is certainly what I am hoping will happen. That is indeed to be encouraged. I have shared my reasons for concern and believe I have substantiated them well enough with the links I have provided. They are my concerns whether they are those of others or not. I don’t believe I need justify them any further.

My concern is also for revealing the truth, not for hiding it such that we are not wise to what is reality. Reality is truth; truth is reality - they are pretty closely related if we are speaking of objective truth. Given the background of the reality of world events, the reality of Qur’anic doctrine, the reality of Islam as practiced in Middle Eastern countries - ignoring these things is just plain foolish. Yes, they make me feel cautious. So I shall wait cautiously for what transpires next, hoping that if these 38 gentlemen do have power and influence and authority in Islam, then we should see a radical change of behaviour compared to the atrocities currently committed in the name of Allah. I hope they will prove to have more charisma (and thus the “tipping point”) than the Muslims who whip up the majorities to outrage and acts of barbarism and terrorism.

There must be absolutely no more beheadings and mutilations, no more atrocities, no more persecution, no more offensive acts of barbary and terrorism. Whatever it takes - it must be made to stop. I will be holding those 38 signatories accountable to their letter to the Pope.

One teleological argument put forward for the existence of an intelligent designer of the universe was based on the watchmaker analogy refined by William Paley in 1805. It suggests that one can tell by looking at something that it must have had a designer, than it could not really have happened “naturally” as a series of random events coming together without any organization of their occurrence.

As an example to demonstrate this idea, the picture is painted of someone walking on a heath and spying a watch on the ground by one’s feet. On picking up and examining the watch, it is noticed how all its parts have been so constructed to function together to tell the time. Did it just happen, a random occurrence of atoms, or was there some intelligence behind it’s existence - a designer at work? Most people would confidently state that someone, or a team of people working together, designed and made it. Indeed, we know this to be true just as we know that such a thing did not exist until it was designed and made in that way.

And so likewise, if you look at some natural phenomenon (a particular organ or organism, the structure of the solar system, life, the entire universe) for each of these too they can be easily surmised to have been designed and built by an intelligent creator/designer.

This analogy is not a complete argument in itself, but a preamble that suggests features such as purpose of design, orderliness and complexity, and plausibility lead one to consider the real possibility that the existence of things did not just happen, not without intelligence initiating, driving and orchestrating the process.

The analogy is debated strenuously by evolutionists including Charles Darwin and more recently, Richard Dawkins. But concepts of evolution and natural selection are only theories as well, despite a general misunderstanding of many that they are proven beyond reasonable doubt. Such is not so.

Today I was shown a flash animated movie that was made presumably to counter the criticism levelled at the watchmaker anaology, and it is so delightful and cleverly done that I want to present it here for others to “watch” also. It runs for only a few minutes and with no apologies for the pun, it is well worth “the watch”.

It is a funny thing about our use of language that it is considered polite to substitute one word for another when the most specific word might conjure up something a little too indelicate for the context of the conversation. Some words get to change meanings altogether that way. For example, the first time I heard an American asking to use the bathroom it really puzzled me that they wanted to go there, to the room that contained the bath or shower. Oh, it was the… er, you know… that was required. So why not say since that was in a different little room of its own? But trust an Australian to clear the matter up. My son, well used to polite Americanisms, discretely asked the waiter in an Aussie restaurant where the bathroom was, and received the answer in a nice loud voice “Oh, you mean the dunny, mate? It’s over there.” Yep, that sure was calling a spade, a spade.

Of course euphemisms have their place, like the lubricant that reduces the heat and wear of friction when two objects rub together, the reality and its representative in speech must slide against each other smoothly in the niceties of polite society. But one that I personally dislike is the saying used to refer to death - passed, passed away, passed on, passing. Is death so indelicate that we must misuse another word to mean someone has died and is now dead? It would seem so. It is used out of respect and sensitivity for the feelings of the bereaved of course, and I have no problem with respect and sensitivity for others where that is appropriate. But how long before those words will themselves become too indelicate and require another to take their place as well? Over time we will probably euphemize ourselves in lingusitic circles, for what it matters.

However, I don’t care that much if people choose to talk that way. Instead, something else I hear said next has peaked my interest more. It has become very commonplace these days to say of someone who has just… er, passed… that now “she will be at peace” and “he has gone to a better place” and other kindly cultural notions of whatever might be hereafter assuming such a thing or place exists. Well, I would certainly like to hope that is so, but as a Christian I cannot always agree with sentiments such as those. For folk who had no time for Christ, who did not accept God’s gift of grace so have a saving faith in Him, then I would tell a lie against my Christian faith to agree to such sentiments as those. But neither would I be so cruel as to say as much right then to the ones who are left behind and hurting. Turning the focus back on the bereaved instead, commenting compassionately on their experience of the loss, is one way to avoid compromising the truth of one’s Christian faith. After all, it is for God to make the judgement, and no other.

A letter to the editor appeared in this morning’s paper and was headed “Difficulties with the Bible“.
It read as follows:

I attend church regularly but can’t accept parts of the Bible. I’m told I should do so. Can someone assist me? Three ministers have failed to give clear answers. One refused to even try.

My difficulties are with:

~ Lot’s offer to the men of Sodom that they were welcome to use his daughters rather than his male guests;
~ Anyone smiting his father should be put to death;
~ If a son be rebellious he shall be stoned to death;
~ Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live;
~ If two men fight and one’s wife tries to help by taking hold of one by the “secrets”, she shall have her hand cut off.

My adult children call this a load of rubbish. Fundamentalist Christians call it the word of God. How can I explain to my family that going to church is important to me and persuade them to return to the Christian faith?

It is not surprising that people have become sceptics. A lot of what is generally believed (but falsely so) about God, and about what is written in the Bible, is not actually believable. Often it makes far more sense not to believe it. Then on top of that, some of what really is found in the Bible creates difficulties caused simply by a gross lack of knowledge. It is like expecting someone to understand the workings of calculus when they have not yet been taught basic arithmetic.

Instead of understanding that God created us in His own image, a great many people go off the rails by reversing the idea and trying to create God in their own image instead. How often have you heard “I don’t believe God would do that!” or “I wouldn’t, therefore I don’t think God would either!” ? The misconceptions that people devise usually ignore and deny a great deal of what God has revealed about Himself. They come close to the human creation of a false god instead. One would be quite right not to believe in an errant inadequate image of God, one that did not truthfully match God’s revelation of Himself. Mistaking the misconception for the real thing justifies the lack of belief, but the ignorance of one’s own error often puts an end to further inquiry.

After disbelieving a false image of God, having presumed it to be the real thing, the next compounding error is to quote odd Bible verses out of context, or to be so vague as in “Doesn’t the Bible say something about…?” and “I thought that..” and “I’m sure it says somewhere that…” that no critical thinking seems apparent at all.

Then I commonly hear the advice given as a supposed solution to doubt “but you need to have faith”. The assumption is that faith is blind, that it takes the place of real evidence, that it is irrational and unreasonable therefore somehow fits, and that it accepts as true what simply cannot be true. Fortunately that is not the case. The Greek word for “faith” as used in the New Testament is “pistis“. As a noun, pistis is a word that was used as a technical rhetorical term for forensic proof - as in real hard evidence! One does not need “blind faith” and the faith spoken of is certainly not blind - far from it. To follow up on this click here.

Then comes those questions like the ones up above. They arise out of a pure lack of knowledge. Yes, there are proper answers for each of them and if the writer is correct in saying that three ministers she asked were unable to answer them, it is really not one bit surprising that people walk away from Christianity calling it “a load of rubbish”. Having just read of a pastor who said that he was not really looking forward to heaven as he thought it would be boring, sitting around on clouds and playing a harp all day, I can quite well believe the writer’s experience. Where in the Bible did that pastor discover that bizarre image? Nowhere. It is a cultural creation, not a true Biblical one. To hear that from just anyone is one thing, but from a Christian pastor it is really quite shocking.

The problem is the lack of teaching in matters of our faith. There is a huge degree of Biblical illiteracy not just among the general public, but among church-going Christians as well. On top of that, there is a lack of theological knowledge - not just what the Bible says, but a knowledge of “background” to give a proper understanding of the context and meaning as well. Fortunately, there is considerable Christian apologia available that provides a substantial case for the Gospel message, and answers to questions such as those above. Look to the left-hand side-bar of this page and there you will see links to many good websites providing this knowledge. As C.S. Lewis wrote in Surprised by Joy, “A young man who wishes to remain a sound aetheist cannot be too careful of his reading.” That comment back in 1955 was made well before there was any Internet for the easy proliferation of knowledge. Look around and you will be well rewarded for your efforts.

1 Corinthians 5: 9 I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. 12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked man from among you.”

This past week it was the turn of the Presbyterian Church in New Zealand to decide whether or not they would ordain as clergy those who were living outside of the description found in Holy Scripture for sexual purity. It might seem to many that Christians are forever hung-up on sex, and despite this being the “enlightened” 21st century, here it goes again - no practising gays, no sexually active singles, no-one in de facto relationships, no-one having an extra-marital affair. All these folk are “sexually immoral” and therefore not fit to be clergy.

In fact, if the Church is to be true to Holy Scripture when it comes to selecting ordinands for the clergy, then the requirements for the job are actually quite detailed. The avoidance of sexual immorality (defined Scripturally, not culturally) is only a part of the story, albeit overly highlighted due to political lobbying of certain “rights” activists and the fashionable incorrectness of discrimination on whichever grounds can be applied. Here is the rest of the list for determining fitness for the role:

If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task.
~ the overseer must be above reproach
~ the husband of but one wife
~ temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable
~ able to teach
~ not given to drunkenness
~ not violent but gentle
~ not quarrelsome
~ not a lover of money
~ able to manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect
~ not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil
~ must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap

Likewise, those who wish to be deacons must:
~ be men worthy of respect
~ be sincere
~ not indulging in much wine
~ not pursuing dishonest gain
~ keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience
~ must first be tested (and then if there is nothing against them they may serve as deacons)
~ be the husband of but one wife
~ manage his children and his household well
Their wives must be
~ women worthy of respect
~ not malicious talkers
~ temperate and trustworthy in everything
Source

Now even that is not the end of the story. There is more:

Ephesians 4:

2 Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. 3 Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

17 So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. 18 They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. 19 Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more.
20 You, however, did not come to know Christ that way. 21 Surely you heard of him and were taught in him in accordance with the truth that is in Jesus. 22 You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; 23 to be made new in the attitude of your minds; 24 and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.
25 Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbor, for we are all members of one body. 26 “In your anger do not sin”: Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, 27 and do not give the devil a foothold. 28 He who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with his own hands, that he may have something to share with those in need.
29 Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. 30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. 31 Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. 32 Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.

Ephesions 5:

1 Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children 2 and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.
3 But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people. 4 Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. 5 For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a man is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient. 7 Therefore do not be partners with them.
8 For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light 9 (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth) 10 and find out what pleases the Lord. 11 Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. 12 For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret. 13 But everything exposed by the light becomes visible, 14 for it is light that makes everything visible. This is why it is said:
“Wake up, O sleeper,
rise from the dead,
and Christ will shine on you.”
15 Be very careful, then, how you live—not as unwise but as wise, 16 making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil. 17 Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the Lord’s will is. 18 Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit. 19 Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, 20 always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

Given that these things are clearly outlined in the New Testament as to how Christians are to behave, is it any wonder that the Church wants to be true to her foundation and require that her ordained clergy be diligent in their efforts to follow suit? And yet there are elements within the Church that are pulling away from these prescriptions. The Presbyterian Church in NZ did indeed vote in favour of excluding the sexually immoral from ordination, but a strong “progressive” faction is very unhappy and has promised to push for reform such that one’s sexual morality no longer matters. They want an inclusive church, one where everyone can be eligible for leadership roles, to teach their culturally determined values, and to renounce the evil discrimination that is found in Holy Scripture!

I offer no apology for the amount of Scripture included in this post. The fact is - these things really are written in the Christian’s holy book. The Church is the body of believers in, and followers of, Christ who is the head of the Church. He is called the Son of God, and also the Word of God. The Church cannot re-write the Word and go some different way while remaining true to Him. There is only One way - His way. And it is written down perfectly clearly for us all to follow.

We are not to judge those outside the church - that is for God to do in His own good time. But we are clearly told to judge those within the church, to gently rebuke each other in love, and eventually to disassociate ourselves from those who persist in a lifestyle of immorality, sexual or otherwise.