It Says What It Says
Helen Barrett Montgomery was president of The Northern Baptist Convention 1921-1922, a time when the leaders of this denomination, now known as ABCUSA, were taking a left ward direction. She was the first woman minister in the denomination, a social reformer and Greek scholar who translated the New Testament, and a feminist who, according to her brief bio published on the Internet by Christian History Institute, “read some of her feminist ideals into her Bible translation or added it to the notes.”
Yet, her Centenary Translation The New Testament In Modern English (compelled by the Greek text) reads in Romans 1:26-27 “That is why God has given them up to passions of dishonor; for on the one hand their women actually changed the natural function of sex into that which is against nature; and on the other hand their men likewise abandoned the natural use of women, and were ablaze with passion for one another; men with men practicing shameless acts, and receiving in their own person that recompense of their wrong doing which necessarily followed.”
She could hardly be called a radical biblical extremist. So, why would she ever translate that passage in the way she did? Because that’s the meaning of the scriptures as revealed by God in the Greek text. She was scholar enough to say what it says.
As an American Baptist who believes that the Bible speaks plainly on this issue, and that the Bible is right because it is inspired by God, I am not interested in telling people caught up in this behavior of “changing natural function” that they can’t do it. That’s their choice and they must explain it to, and, work it out with God.
I’m asking that the denomination stand where Helen Barrett Montgomery’s translation of the scriptures does, and say what it says. I’m asking ABCUSA to indicate to those who reject portions of scripture they dislike, to admit that it is inappropriate for them to claim to be traditional Baptists when they openly reject as true the basis for traditional Baptist faith and behavior.
Yes, it will mean that they ought to leave us. And yes, if they have theological integrity, they will require themselves to leave us, to start a new denomination or join with another that discards this significant portion of scripture as well, but that action will allow them to be who they want to be, without destroying this great denomination they claim to love.
Since our denominational leaders do not have the spiritual wherewithal to take the suitable action, shouldn’t the Welcoming & Affirming churches act sacrificially, and do it for them?
Yet, her Centenary Translation The New Testament In Modern English (compelled by the Greek text) reads in Romans 1:26-27 “That is why God has given them up to passions of dishonor; for on the one hand their women actually changed the natural function of sex into that which is against nature; and on the other hand their men likewise abandoned the natural use of women, and were ablaze with passion for one another; men with men practicing shameless acts, and receiving in their own person that recompense of their wrong doing which necessarily followed.”
She could hardly be called a radical biblical extremist. So, why would she ever translate that passage in the way she did? Because that’s the meaning of the scriptures as revealed by God in the Greek text. She was scholar enough to say what it says.
As an American Baptist who believes that the Bible speaks plainly on this issue, and that the Bible is right because it is inspired by God, I am not interested in telling people caught up in this behavior of “changing natural function” that they can’t do it. That’s their choice and they must explain it to, and, work it out with God.
I’m asking that the denomination stand where Helen Barrett Montgomery’s translation of the scriptures does, and say what it says. I’m asking ABCUSA to indicate to those who reject portions of scripture they dislike, to admit that it is inappropriate for them to claim to be traditional Baptists when they openly reject as true the basis for traditional Baptist faith and behavior.
Yes, it will mean that they ought to leave us. And yes, if they have theological integrity, they will require themselves to leave us, to start a new denomination or join with another that discards this significant portion of scripture as well, but that action will allow them to be who they want to be, without destroying this great denomination they claim to love.
Since our denominational leaders do not have the spiritual wherewithal to take the suitable action, shouldn’t the Welcoming & Affirming churches act sacrificially, and do it for them?
posted by St. Louis K at 12:16 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home