Finnish bishop-elect charged over historic Christian teachings on human sexuality

1. There are probably people around who think Finland is a modern, democratic, progressive country. This action brings that into doubt.

   • David, I think that what this demonstrates is that Finland certainly is “a modern, democratic, progressive country”. Thus freedom of religion is understood rightly as being subject to human rights in a liberal society. The historic Christian teaching on human sexuality took root in authoritarian and traditional societies, but this is merely an incidental observation. It is noteworthy however that, for the Body of Christ, freedom of religion is not, and never has been, a biblical teaching.

     • Any attempt to stop Christians from stating their beliefs is the very antithesis of the idea of a modern, democratic liberal society. If these Lutherans were asking for homosexuals to be gaoled or worse that would be a different matter, but they are simply stating (or rather, stated a considerable number of years ago) what they believe to be Bible teaching on the rightness or wrongness of some behaviours. My position is simply based on decent human values that many “progressives” apparently don’t value. The State should not decide on a whim what is acceptable when it comes to what topics are or are not to be discussed, and which opinions are to be proscribed. This is a question of freedom of speech and expression.

       • You appear to be begging the question as to whether a post-Christian society is the antithesis of a modern, democratic liberal society.

         • In what way am I begging trhe question? Is it that I am assuming that freedom of speech is a basic human right?

         • The issue is not as to whether freedom of speech is a basic human right. The issue concerns whether the relevant constraints on freedom of speech are antithetical to liberal democratic values. You appear, rightly or wrongly, to be making that assumption. Further the issue concerns whether we should support (unconditional) freedom of speech for those who proscribe what is perceived to be the “human rights” of others; the issue is not as to whether I ought advocate for freedom of speech for those who disagree with me (cf J Collins above).

         • I think you are making the mistake of applying the paradigms you use to interpret these issues to suppose that David uses the same paradigms. This sets up a straw man to which David could well reply “I reject your premise.”

           By its very nature religion makes claims of right and wrong about facets of human behavior. Several, I’d guess most nations around the world claim to adhere to the concept of freedom of religion. In the United States we’ve enshrined that in part with our First Amendment to the Constitution, which says in part that government will make no law regarding the establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof. We do not, however, live by this idea.

           In this article, to which David is responding, a prominent church leader wrote a text that espouses a point of view clearly found in a religion’s holy book, a point of view consistent with how that religion has taught on the subject for hundreds of years. He is being charged with a crime for writing that text.

           To say this arrest is antithetical to freedom of religion is to me pretty obvious. You say “The issue is not as to whether freedom of speech is a basic human right. The issue concerns whether the relevant constraints on freedom of speech are antithetical to liberal democratic values.” For you that may be the case. But that’s not the issue most of us jump to when we read this article. Though I will say that to claim freedom of religion, or freedom of speech, exists, then easily abrogate then in favor of another value is to say that indeed freedom of religion or speech do not actually exist.

         • What I think you are overlooking is the radical social change in liberal democratic countries, in the past generation. The situation in Finland is a perfect example of it.

           It is not a matter of it being the case for me that the issue concerns whether the relevant constraints on freedom of speech are antithetical to liberal democratic values. This in effect is the import of the action taken by Finland’s Prosecutor General, who evidently imputes the wrongdoing to the relevant church leader for espousing “a point of view clearly found in a religion’s holy book”.

           That the issue that “most of us jump to when we read this article”, is that “this arrest is antithetical to freedom of religion” confirms that most of us may be overlooking that the notion of freedom of religion has changed, and is changing, at its very core. As I say, the question at issue concerns whether a post-Christian society, such as Finland, must forfeit its claim to being a liberal democracy. I dare say the Prosecutor General would hold that Finland has matured as a liberal democracy, and so, it will no longer tolerate abuse in the name of religion. There would be many Church leaders happy to endorse this attitude. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York spring to mind.

           Further there is a question (which you approach at the end of your comment), to the effect that freedom of religion does “not actually exist”, if it is made subject to claims “of another value” eg. human rights. Well, that, again, is the question at issue. It is not something that we can assume as proven in the relevant context of social change. My own view is that political beliefs are, indeed, creatures of historical development, whereas the thing that the people of God should prize is the freedom that we have always in Christ Jesus.

         • “…that Finland will no longer tolerate abuse in the name of religion”. I’m afraid I must live on a different planet. How on earth can a book on Christian belief, published back in 2004, suddenly be seen as abuse in the name of religion? I would be hesitant to classify any written material as “abuse” in the usual sense of that word, but certainly not a book stating that certain actions are sinful. Perhaps the actions of those seeking legal action against those connected with the book are by far the greater abusers, if that is the way we want to use the word.

         • A nation practices freedom of religion, or it does not.

           Finland clearly does not. It has now charged a leader of a church with a crime for teaching his flock what his religion’s holy book CLEARLY teaches.

           Any change in culture or academics or anything else may explain what was in the mind of the representative of the state that charged the churchman, but it is still a violation of freedom of religion.

           In fact, it is getting lost in the weeds of whether a position is defensible or understandable that creates an environment in which our freedoms are eroded.

           We went through this last year in America. The First Amendment includes in part that the government will make no laws regarding the establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Then along comes COVID, we feared for making our congregants fatally ill, and we went along with the state declaring that while liquor stores and pot shops were ‘essential’, churches were not. And we looked away when churches who chose to remain open had the boot of the state come down on them and charge them with violating an executive order. We allowed them to prohibit the free exercise of religion. Oh, there was a reason. At the time. But, looking back on it, it doesn’t make nearly as much sense. And in my state, every church that took it to court… wait for it… won. They won because they did not get lost in the weeds, they stood on the First Amendment.

           There is freedom of religion, or there is not. When one starts with “except when” the result will be the absence of freedom of religion.

         • The prohibition never made sense and no church should have followed government dictates to close their doors. Period.

         • The problem with this is that it suggests that a Church should put up political resistance. There are many liberals who think that this sort of thing is what the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ is all about, although they would typically draw the line at opposing regulations perceived as not making sense. Can we put it another way? The question is not concerning whether any church should have followed government dictates to close its doors, but whether any church which closed its doors, or not, did so in accordance with the will of God. I hasten to note: not the perceived will of God.

         • ” I hasten to note: not the perceived will of God.”

           Everyone hastens to note that, if you take my meaning.

         • No, I don’t. Church history makes sense only if we understand that professing Christians invariably fail to act in accordance with the will of God.

         • I disagree that “professing Christians invariably fail to act in accordance with the will of God”. Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don’t. Which is also what scripture tells us to expect.

         • The point I would want to make is that the Body of Christ never fails to act in accord with God’s will for the church. This is why I suggest above that the issue does not concern whether or not any given church followed government dictates to close its doors.

         • “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

           Worship is God’s. We should render it to Him, without forsaking the gathering together of the saints, as is the practice of some.

           And Caesar? The Constitution backs our right to practice our religion freely.

         • I don’t think Finland would get where it is today if it had the First Amendment. Agreed. This matter raises a set of questions that are legal, philosophical, and theological. I am the more concerned with the latter, and not standing on my rights when it comes to the teaching of the church. The preferred model is Acts, ch 5.

         • “The preferred model is Acts, ch 5.”

           How can it be the “preferred model” if it only happens once?

           There are numerous other instances in scripture of the church dealing with error, all quite different to Acts 5.

           And Acts 5 doens’t even deal wth doctrine but with dishonesty.

         • I made reference to “not standing on my rights when it comes to the teaching of the church”. The context is the present debate concerning freedom of religion. In Acts 5, we witness the conduct of the apostles who tell the authorities appropriately that they obey God, rather than man.
           Having been commanded not to speak in the name of Jesus, thereafter they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ, but rejoiced that they were found worthy to suffer shame for the name of the Saviour of the world. I say that this is the preferred model, that is, that it is preferable to moaning because those who have rejected Christ have the effrontery to infringe upon our freedom of religion. Would you agree, or not?

         • I was listening to Doug Wilson on human rights only this afternoon. Much as I enjoy his style I find his, and all other insistence on human rights, to be deeply flawed when viewed through a Biblical lens. We are told we have human responsibilities to our fellows and to God, but I don’t read any statement of human rights, anywhere in the Book.

           Universal human rights are a pragmatic answer to the evils of oppression, exploitation, slavery and so on, but the difficulty is the pragmatism. The more that ‘rights’ are developed, conceptually, the more my rights bump into someone else’s. Deciding whose rights come out on top is a choice that shows up the deficiencies of the concept, and is a choice the Biblical model doesn’t need to impose.

           As for the “right not to be offended” it is as ridiculous as the EU’s new Commissioner for Hypocrisy (I may have the title slightly wrong).

           I pray that there are sufficient brave souls in Finland to treat this with the contempt it deserves. If I spoke Finnish and could travel, I’d go there to support them, in the hope they would do the same for me, when it happens here in the UK, next week.

         • There seemed to be a time (perhaps June to August, 1982) when we had some sort of balance between complete freedom (or licence) and oppression, when defamation laws and laws against inciting violence, for example, put a brake on those who would abuse freedom. Since then we have gradually moved more and more towards wokery and jiggery-pokery with the freedom to express views being curtailed more and more. Even many church leaders have betrayed Bible-believers and freedom-lovers.

           Christians have to respect the authorities and pray for them, and in democratic societies we have the full right to criticise them and oppose their ideas when we see fit. What history has given us is very precious and we should not go down without a fight, especially when the freedom to preach the gospel is at stake. If and when that freedom has gone we can then discuss again the way to respect the authorities and honour God.

         • I do not see how the freedom to preach the gospel can be considered “precious”, or how it could be seen even as appropriate to contend for it.
           The Commission of the church is to make disciples of all nations; how we should go about doing that is both straightforward and simple, Matthew 10:13-14. We have not been tasked with a public relations campaign.

         • I think you need to expand on that Chris.

         • David, we do not have any business with this world’s princes. I best refer you to the writing of the Apostle Paul, the second chapter of his first letter to the Corinthians.

         • Jesus commanded his disciples to preach the gospel to the world. I don’t see how the freedom to preach the gospel cannot be considered precious. In my daily prayers I pray for Christians in many specific countries where religious freedom is in some cases almost completely denied, and in others severely restricted. I have no problem in praying that such people will have relief from such restrictions. The same applies to any “free” nation where such freedoms are under threat. If you are one of those who thinks Christians should not have any involvement in politics, even in democracies, that’s OK, but even so, surely it’s not unbiblical to ask authorities to give us reasonable freedom to practise and proclaim our faith.

         • I did not say that there was anything wrong with petitioning authorities on behalf of our brethren and I didn’t say that Christ’s followers should not involve themselves in politics. As to whether it’s unbiblical to request authorisation to meet together in the name of Christ, I think that the relevant consideration concerns whether it would be wise to do so, cf. Matthew 10:16. Freedom to preach the gospel appears to be incidental.

         • Why would it be unwise to do so?

         • I don’t know whether it would be unwise to do so. I think it would be the relevant consideration because we have been sent out like sheep among wolves.

         • You are trying to expound 1 Cor 2:6-16 as though it conflicts with the various passage where Paul (and others such as Stephen) witnessed to non-Christian rulers and people.

         • Witnessing to non-Christian rulers and peoples would very much be the work of preaching the gospel. So I have to say that I am not able to follow you.

         • That is because you appear to lose track of things you have written in previous comments.

           My point is that you were incorrect to write (to David Morrison) that “we do not have any business with this world’s princes”. We do in fact have some business with them, as scripture teaches us.

           You are also incorrect to say that we are not to engage with secular authorities or persons in any way that accepts their terms of engagement. But in fact that is what Paul often did.

         • No, I am not able to follow you. You appear to be fighting with me, saying, “Gotcha”. I will leave it at that, and not respond further. God bless.

         • I am not fighting with you, just responding to each point you make, and mainly using scripture.

           You have made a number of sweeping assertions on this thread, claiming Christians are not to do various things, and a number of people have had trouble working out what you mean.

         • “how we should go about doing that is both straightforward and simple, Matthew 10:13-14”

           No, that’s just one way. Read the whole book of Acts for many others. There is no point in only reading the parts of scripture we like.

           “We have not been tasked with a public relations campaign.”

           Paul would not agree with you. 1 Tim 3:7

         • If you believe that the book of Acts and 1 Timothy 3:7 exhibit an alternative to Matt. 10:13-14, then you need to do more than assert that it does. Certainly I would not reject a priori any interpretation to that effect. Why do you think that I would?

           Re 1 Timothy 3: 7 and the matter concerning whether we have been tasked with a public relations campaign, I would also note George Conger’s apposite observation in another story current on Anglican Ink:

           to sacrifice the church’s public reputation when that reputation is held in high esteem by the community, in order to do what Scripture commands, is the mark of a spiritually mature church and leader.

           I’m sure that Paul would agree.

         • Matthew 10:13-14 (entering a town, preaching the word, and then leaving) is just one method of spreading the Gospel. Later we see the apostles and evangelists establishing a permanent presence in towns (i.e. a congregation) and in many cases living permanently with the congregation they lead.

           “ I would also note George Conger’s apposite observation…”

           Yes, sometimes that’s what we need to do. But that doesn’t change the fact that Paul was concerned about public relations, contrary to your assertion that we are not to be concerned with it. That’s why Paul said of an overseer of a congregation: “He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap.” [1 Tim 3:7]

         • Sorry, but I am getting more confused as to your position with each post. Perhaps if I put it this way: Edgarson wrote:

           “Worship is God’s. We should render it to Him, without forsaking the gathering together of the saints, as is the practice of some.
           And Caesar? The Constitution backs our right to practice our religion freely.”

           I don’t understand what your difficulty is with that. Or perhaps you don’t have a difficulty and I have misunderstood you, in which case my apologies.

         • I didn’t reply to Edgarson so as not to labour the point that freedom of religion is inessential. I understand that the institutional church has an interest in this area which is rightly noted as the province of Caesar.
           There is no inconsistency in my comments. Given the limited space that we have, I find it best to take all comments at face value.

         • I’m with MichaelA, your position is more confusing with each post.

           I think members of a church who live in a country that espouses freedom of religion have a right to protest incursions of that in that country’s public forum.

           I think they also have a right under God to meet anyway, though it would be fair to do so in a clandestine manner.

           Getting back to the subject of this article, it is appropriate to protest what was just done to this churchman.

           What on EARTH is the problem with this?

         • I wouldn’t protest what was done to this churchman mainly because the principle of freedom of religion is antithetical to Scripture. It is also problematical, across the board, as it were, insofar as we are now living in the wake of modernity. That does not mean it is inappropriate to protest the matter. If you do so – “in that country’s public forum” – then you will be compelled to leave Scripture out of it. That would not be appropriate, as I see it. I feel sorry that my comments have confused you, and hope that it is clearer now.

         • “the principle of freedom of religion is antithetical to Scripture.”

           How? Scripture seems just fine with it.

           “If you do so – “in that country’s public forum” – then you will be compelled to leave Scripture out of it.”

           Why?

           “That would not be appropriate,“

           Again, why? The apostle Paul from time to time chose not to use scripture when dealing with secular authorities. If its good enough for him, its good enough for us.

         • Re freedom of religion, I understand it to consist in the right to practise whatever religion one chooses. What do you mean when you say that “… Scripture seems just fine with it”. Can you refer me to the text?

           Further, you ask as to why it would not be appropriate to “leave Scripture out of it … ” in a public forum debate, in relation to freedom of religion. On that question, I refer you to my latest reply to Edgarson. I would want to add only that the point is not that I should choose to use Scripture when dealing with authorities, as if I should choose to cast pearls before swine.

         • “What do you mean when you say that “… Scripture seems just fine with it”. Can you refer me to the text?”

           Why would I be obliged to do that? You need to provide some proof for your initial assertion, “the principle of freedom of religion is antithetical to Scripture.”

           “Further, you ask as to why it would not be appropriate to “leave Scripture out of it … ”.”

           Actually I asked for more than that. You asserted that we would be “compelled to leave Scripture out of it.” I asked why you said that, and you haven’t responded. I can’t see anything in your reply to Edgarson which supports any of your assertions, from Scripture that is. There are many examples in scripture which show that preaching scripture to the unconverted (including the authorities) is exactly what we should be doing.

           “the point is not that I should choose to use Scripture when dealing with authorities, as if I should choose to cast pearls before swine.”

           I do not see any rational basis for equating the use of scripture with “casting pearls before swine”.

         • It is possible for me to discuss further and explain what I mean when I say that the principle of freedom of religion is antithetical to Scripture, but I don’t follow you when you say that I “need to provide some proof”. It’s the sort of thing that might profitably be debated, if you would like to. That would depend on our seeking first to understand what the other party might mean by any given assertion.

           Cf my saying that “.. the point is not that i should choose to use Scripture when dealing with authorities, as if I should choose to cast pearls before swine”. It appears that you do not follow my meaning in saying this. It’s difficult to do so when comments, of necessity, must be brief. Re the statement that we would be “compelled to leave Scripture out of it”, i referred you to my reply to Edgarson because it contained the relevant quotation from Steve Bruce. I agree that preaching scripture to the unconverted (including the authorities) “…is exactly what we should be doing”. So I don’t follow your objection here.

         • “but I don’t follow you when you say that I “need to provide some proof”.”

           Its quite simple. YOU made the initial assertion “the principle of freedom of religion is antithetical to Scripture.” It was a sweeping negative assertion, for which you cited no evidence of any kind. When I (among others) disagreed, you demanded that I provide evidence. But in fact, it is you who are obliged to produce evidence to support your initial assertion.

           “It appears that you do not follow my meaning in saying this.”

           I am dealing with the objective meaning of your words. If you think I have misunderstood, feel free to provide clarification. My position remains that I do not see any rational basis for equating the use of scripture with “casting pearls before swine”.

         • Surely you are simply trolling us now.

           “…the principle of freedom of religion is antithetical to Scripture.” Are you referring to the New Testament? The Christian church had just been founded, it stepped out into a world hostile to it. Rome initially HAD freedom of religion, before it adopted the Imperial Cult.

           Are you referring to the Old Testament? The commandment was that we are to follow God, It was not meant as a blueprint for governance by nations, that they should prohibit freedom of religion regardless of what religion, or lack thereof, they hold.

           Finland claimed to have freedom of religion. They have violated it in this case. I think we have a RESPONSIBILITY to point out the legal malpractice.

           I think the Biblical model is that we should engage culture, not be mere passive observers.

         • Edgarson, that the principle of freedom of religion is antithetical to Scripture is implicit in your own observation that the commandment that we are to follow God “… was not meant as a blueprint for governance by nations”. That is exactly what it means to say that Scripture is antithetical to freedom of religion.

           Further you say that the biblical model is that we should engage with culture. Certainly it is. The only question at issue concerns the terms on which we engage with culture. In his book, Secularization (2011), Steve Bruce notes: “No church in a modern society can plausibly claim that its values should predominate because God is on its side”. That is true as a sociological statement, which is a category of statement that we do not find in Scripture, but I can see no reason why the values of the church should predominate other than that God is on its side. The point is that I can not possibly engage with culture, on the biblical model, by accepting secular terms of engagement, and, in particular, by appealing to the principle of freedom of religion, rather than the teaching of Christ calling sinners to repentance.

           I note that you referred to being trolled. I would prefer not to discuss the matter, if you feel this way. There is absolutely no call for it.

         • “… was not meant as a blueprint for governance by nations”. That is exactly what it means to say that Scripture is antithetical to freedom of religion.

           That is absurd.

           There is absolutely no call for it.

           I said it. Your call.

         • “I can see no reason why the values of the church should predominate other than that God is on its side.”

           The apostle Paul did not agree with you. He engaged in debate with those of different cultural and religious background to himself. So did Stephen, and others. You have rejected a significant part of scripture

           “The point is that I can not possibly engage with culture, on the biblical model, by accepting secular terms of engagement”

           If you follow Scruipture, yes you can.

         • Engaging, in the manner of Paul and Stephen, in debate with “… those of different cultural and religious backgrounds” is very much the work of preaching the gospel. So, again, I am having difficulty following you.

           You say that you can accept secular terms of engagement if you follow Scripture. How do you understand the notion of accepting “secular terms of engagement”? It’s the sort of thing that might profitably be debated, if you like. That would depend on our seeking first to understand what the other party might mean by any given assertion. I would be pleased to clarify any comments that are, certainly, brief, and may well be confusing.

         • “You wrote: “Engaging, in the manner of Paul and Stephen, in debate with “… those of different cultural and religious backgrounds” is very much the work of preaching the gospel. So, again, I am having difficulty following you.”

           You are just deflecting. You wrote: “The point is that I can not possibly engage with culture, on the biblical model, by accepting secular terms of engagement“. I disagreed with that assertion, and I pointed out that Paul and Stephen engaged in debate with those of different cultural and religious backgrounds, accepting their terms of engagement. And yes, while preaching the gospel.

           “Its sort of thing that might profitably be debated, if you like.”

           We are debating it. Several people have tried to debate with you on this thread, and have found that you are not clear at all, on many things.

         • No, unfortunately, we are not debating it. Disagreeing with someone is not debating the issue. If we were debating the matter, you would respond, in good will, by answering my question as to how you understand the notion of accepting “secular terms of engagement”.

         • I am debating it. I am not so sure that you have been doing so.

           Others have also tried to debate it with you. We have responded in good will. It would be good if you could do the same.

           “by answering my question as to how you understand the notion of accepting “secular terms of engagement”.”

           No, its actually up to you to tell us, since you brought up the phrase, and never explained what you meant. To then demand that others provide that explanation, when you didn’t see the need to, is hardly showing integrity in debate.

           However, as it happens, I have already told you what I see it as, by the scripture references I gave.

         • Of course, in Australia, we say “protest AGAINST”. Our prepositions are still active! Just to relieve the tension with an irrelevancy.

         • “freedom of religion is inessential”

           Most things are “inessential” strictly speaking, even Christian fellowship. But Paul considered that freedom of religion is desirable.

           “I understand that the institutional church has an interest in this area“

           The “institutional church” is just the visible church that scripture tells us about. Scripture tells us that the church will seek freedom of religion. That is what Paul sought in his court cases. And he added:

           “I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.” [1 Tim 2:1-2]

           This is hardly surprising – Paul’s ability to spread the gospel was greatly aided by the fact that he was allowed to do so and able to do so, thanks to the Roman Empire.

         • What do you mean when you say that Paul considered freedom of religion desirable? Can you refer me to the text?

           “The “institutional church” is just the visible church that scripture tells us about”.

           We find references in Scripture to the geographical locations of the church, but we find no references in Scripture to there being a visible church or an institutional church.

           “Scripture tells us that the church will seek freedom of religion”.

           Where does Scripture tell us that the church will seek freedom of religion? Can you refer me to the text?

           You say that Paul “sought it..” i.e freedom of religion, in his court cases. Given that this is what is in question, you need to be able to show that this is what he sought. Can you refer me to the text?

           “Paul’s ability to spread the gospel was greatly aided by the fact that he was allowed to do so and able to do so, thanks to the Roman Empire”.

           Yes, I think that that’s true – empirically true.

         • “Can you refer me to the text?”

           I already did. See the scripture references in my post above

           “we find no references in Scripture to there being a visible church or an institutional church.”

           I disagree. Scripture is full of references to the visible church. Most of the reference to the church in the epistles are to it, e.g. most of the book of Acts, 1 Cor 10-14, Titus 1, 1 Tim 3. Jesus did also in such passages as Mt 18:15-17

           “Can you refer me to the text?”

           I already did. See my post above.

           “Can you refer me to the text?”

           Sure. What do you think Paul was doing before Lysias, Paulus, Felix and Festus?

           “empirically true”

           Not just empirically true – the scriptures show us that it is true. That is not from our own experience, but by revelation.

         • Thank you for your references to the text. Can you say what you understand Paul to be saying insofar as you believe that he considered freedom of relgion desirable? I’m having difficulty following you. It’s the sort of thing that might profitably be debated, if you would like to. That would depend on our seeking first to understand what the other party might mean by any given assertion.

           Whether any post-biblical expressions such as “the institutional church”; “the local church”; “the universal church”; “the visible church”; “the invisible church” are co-extensive with biblical references to the church might also be profitably debated. I would be in the negative, but would look forward to discussing it with you.

           Paul was variously defending himself and preaching the gospel before Lysias, Paulus, Felix, Faustus, Agrippa et al. You say that this was his seeking freedom of religion. Why do you say that?

           “Not just empirically true”.

           What are you referring to? I was agreeing with your point that “Paul’s ability to spread the gospel was greatly aided by the fact that he was allowed to do so and able to do so, thanks to the Roman Empire”. This is true as a matter of fact. It is not a conceptual truth or a revealed truth.

         • I will number the paragraphs for ease of following this debate:

           1. “That would depend on our seeking first to understand what the other party might mean by any given assertion.”

           That is a good idea. Have a look through the thread above and see for how many other people you didn’t follow that philosophy.

           2. “It’s the sort of thing that might profitably be debated,”

           We are already debating it. Paul considered that it was desirable that the church be in a peaceful society so as to assist it in preaching the gospel and making disciples. That was the point of the passage I cited.

           3. Re “visible church” I have already posted on this thread that this is what the scriptures are referring to, in many place. You denied that, but I still don’t know on what grounds.

           4. “Paul was variously defending himself and preaching the gospel before Lysias, Paulus, Felix, Faustus, Agrippa et al. You say that this was his seeking freedom of religion. Why do you say that?”

           Paul sought the freedom to continue with his work of preaching the gospel. He was quite prepared to engage directly with secular rulers, and to use the Roman legal system, in order to achieve that.

           5. Finally, my reference to “Not just empirically true”, is that the scriptures illustrate for us the fact of how the church was able to grow owing in part to the Pax Romana of the 1st century. That is a matter of revelation, regardless of the fact that its not explicitly stated.

2. […] Reported by Anglican.ink […]

3. I am a part of the liberal catholic wing of the Anglican Communion, and was actually raised ELCA, a more liberal Lutheran denomination in communion with the larger Lutheran Church of Finland, and I do not think that the bishop of this conservative Lutheran denomination should be charged for stating what is the religious teaching of his denomination. I disagree strongly with his views and I vocally support the full inclusion of LGBTQ people in the life of the Church. I will also be among the first to defend the freedom of speech and of religion for those who disagree with me.

   • To wit a poisoned chalice.

4. The legal action being discussed is usually based on the assumption that public statements should not insult or offend people. The protagonists of such action are apparently people who do believe in offending people, but only those they disagree with. I feel offended and hurt and dismayed when churches teach that homosexual practices are not sinful, but I believe they must have the freedom to express their views. God will be their judge. I have been offended at being called a homophobe and a bigot, but I take such insults as par for the course for those who can’t argue a case for same-sex marriage, for instance, and who want to silence those they disagree with. The idea that these kinds of repressive actions are taken to prevent offence rings very hollow indeed.

5. He should immigrate to the U.S., where we still have freedom of speech. Oh, wait…

6. […] not. Even if a lower court did convict Dr Päivi Räsänen, a Christian Democrat member of the Finnish Parliament and former Interior […]

Comments are closed.