I totally agree with you Miranda Suzanne. Its time to drop Bible and move on. That would of course include Christianity.

If people need to gather together to worship God or whatever there must be a more relevant form. The Gnostics used have simple meeting with no distinction between the sexes. As the worshipers went into there meetings they took a marble out of a bag and whoever picked the black marble chaired the meeting.

All the things mentioned in your post do not seem to have anything to do with God. Scrap the Bible. In fact scrap any idea of a 'holy' text. It only builds an atmosphere of authority and power.
To me the churches mentioned in the article present only a very small step towards an atmosphere of equality.

The New Testament inequality of men and women comes from Paul in Romans and is a carry over from the OT. The basic argument used by Paul is that men look better with short hair and women look better with long hair. Therefore men go before God with their heads uncovered and women with their heads covered. Thus God is above man, and man above woman. And this is the man who is responsible for 27 of the 33 books in the NT.

I wonder how a sex discrimination case against churches that use the Bible would go? It amazes me the power that Christianity has in our society. If that is people want to do that OK, but why should the rest of us be expected to comply?

Christianity in it present form should never have happened.

If you sign up to a club or an organisation you find out what it stands for and if you agree with its values and objectives you sign up to show support. If later you disagree with the objectives of the organisation and openly oppose its values then you surely have to expect accountability for your statements and actions. If after discussion you cannot agree the organisation has every right to terminate your membership. You can always start your own club/ organisation expressing the values you hold , however you have no right to hold the organisation you disagree with to continued vexatious behaviour.
I think the comments about vengeance and mathematic ratios miss the point entirely. If you say you are a Christian it follows you must believe its core doctrines. If you do not believe in the core doctrines how can you classify yourself as Christian? As someone else once said A cannot be Non A.

foxydude,

i was just having a bit of fun with the mathematical ratios. but i do agree with miranda: the vengeance bits are distasteful, in whatever quantity.

more importantly, we're all judging, and are free to judge, the bible by external criteria. the fact that something is written in the bible does not give it special weight. it comes with no godly stamp of approval. the bible is not god's work, it's just a book.

i also don't think it's as simple as you say, clubs having rules and whatnot. the question is, what does "core doctrines" mean? i'm not christian, and it's not for me to say. but i do seem to get along better with "christians" who focus on the words of christ. then there are those who feel free to sling biblical quotes, as if in a game of theological pokemon. (i choose YOU, leviticus 15.19!). them i can do without.

Foxy Dude,

I paraphrase "If you sign up for something you should follow it's core doctrines"

Can you show me where the churches have followed their own core doctrines in regards to sexual abuse, honesty, following Jesus'teachings and hoarding of money?

This is the fundamental flaw of fundamentalists.

Isn't there only one ministry "The Ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ" if you are a believer?

Why do most drop his name from their denominations? It makes them like Dick Smith without the Dick or the Smith!

Does the fact that they call themselves Christian organisations and a person calls themselves Christian mean that they are?

How many Christians really know the Bible?

In my thread Is the Bible inerrant, infallible or God's word?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2572&page=0#57995

I directly quote the Bible to illustrate many of the problems religions face.

Is "honesty" a core belief of Christian religions?

Have the churches created the monsters they now face, because they have misled too many people, for too long?

How can a Christian organisation don't represent Christ honestly?

How can a Christian organisation believe the Bible is God's Word when it is so demonstrably not?

How can Christian clergy sleep when they fail to report crimes or suspected crimes within their organisations to the Police?

How can so called Christians oppress homosexuals based on false teachings from "Moses' Laws?

Core values is a very broad term... If Christianity is to be regarded as having core values shouldn't the clergy start by telling the truth, following the law and leading by example? See also this thread - what core values?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8616&page=1

How can allegedly Christian organisations prevent women from achieving the heights of their faith and spirituality by creating the unChristian glass ceiling?

Is the term "an unGodly mess" getting louder and louder, due to false teachings and incorrect doctrines through fibbing?

If the churches aren't following alleged Jesus' teachings are they really Christian churches?

If you choose to believe in God, fine, but shouldn't you know that your churches are actually telling the truth!

We have had a lot of discussion about church law, and vengeance is mine saith the Lord. The English were the very first to really upset the Pope, with this law, taken from Halsbury’s Statutes of England published in 1960.
Magna Carta 1297 Statute
Clause 14: [14] A Freeman shall not be amerced for a small fault, but after the manner of the fault; and for a great fault after the greatness thereof, saving to him his contenement; and a Merchant likewise, saving to him his Merchandise; and any other's villain than ours shall be likewise amerced, saving his wainage, if he falls into our mercy. And none of the said amerciaments shall be assessed, but by the oath of honest and lawful men of the vicinage. Earls and Barons shall not be amerced but by their Peers, and after the manner of their offence. No man of the Church shall be amerced after the quantity of his spiritual Benefice, but after his Lay-tenement, and after the quantity of his offence.
Clause 29: [29] No Freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed; nor will we pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful Judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.

Let us just get a few things right. Firstly this gave the Supreme Court ecclesiastical jurisdiction, over the churches in England and Australia. Secondly it established the Christian right to jury trial, I say derives from Matthew 18 verse 20, and thirdly, It gives vengeance to the Lord, because it vests the right to fix penalties in a jury not a Judge.
Since the Australian Courts Act 1828 required all Australian courts, to abide its provisions, and it was in force in 1900, and it was put outside the legislative capacity of a State parliament to repeal by S 108 Constitution, the Churches concerned should consider

It seems to me that the discussion has got off the topic a bit.

While a good percentage of rational people might agree with the philosophies of the two incumbents, most might also agree that the pulpits from which these philosophies are espoused may not really be the appropriate places when all the circumstances are considered.

St.Michael's was originally the Collins Street Independent Church, before Frank, who was then a member of the Scot's Presbyterian Church over the road, became the minister. It seems that even though St.Michael's is nominally part of the Uniting Church, most of its members still follow the Independent tradition. I can't offer a solution to Father Kennedy's problem, but it seems to me that St.Michael's, if it wants to retain the services of Dr.McNab, should seriously consider whether it stays within the Uniting Church. Perhaps they should also consider whether they should also change the name to something less representative of the Christian Church, whose teachings with regard to Christmas and Easter it apparently eschews.

I don't think that Father Kennedy's flock have the option of a similar course of action.

David