Christianity - Family Life

There will certainly also be elements of the themes of answers 1 and 3, at least. Baptism (by full immersion) then follows when the new arrival is old enough to make a personal faith decision for him- or herself.

The potential symbolism of seeds would be obvious, but as far as we know, these are not integral to any baptismal rites. The water (whether by washing, or a the simple sign of a cross on the young forehead) is probably familiar enough, but the lighted candle is often given to parents and godparents as a symbol of God's love, companionship and revelation; meanwhile, oil ('chrism': as in 'Christos', the anointed one) may also have been used.

(Put to one side any maxims about oil and water never mixing, or the potential conjunction of oil and flames!)

Preparation by a member of the clergy, then Confirmation by a bishop is the step by which the older young person will become an adult member of the faith community in their own right (able, for instance, to take communion).

The witnesses may also fulfil this function, though at a small private wedding there may be no 'congregation' to be either marshalled or impressed. In these enlightened days, of course, it is politically incorrect to assume answer 4, though various different Christian traditions may move further in the direction of formally approving same-sex couples during the potential currency of this quiz.

There is nothing along the direct lines of answer 4 in the current marriage service in most parts of the Christian church, though it is certainly implied and not discouraged.

By the standards of His earthly day, Jesus certainly went out of his way to minister to women and welcome them into his company, but apart from named individuals such as Martha and Mary at Bethany, and Mary of Madgala, there is no definitive account of Him ever counting any women as on a complete par with the Twelve.

Answer 2 probably reflects the spread of views at present, though as the 21st century continues there may be drifts and developments. Within recent and present memory there have been cases of openly gay priests, and how their various churches have regarded them. Paul (in his various letters, written at a time when male homosexuality was openly fashionable in the Graeco-Roman world while frowned-upon by Jews) clearly condemns gay lifestyles while yet preaching a gospel of 'forgiveness'; there seems to be no acknowledgement back then of lesbianism, although that derives its very name from the isle of Lesbos (recently in the news for other sad reasons, as a goal for refugees) where Sappho was born around 600 years before New Testament times. Another more modern view is to rejoice in the diversity of people and in the power-for-good of 'true love', while respecting privacy for individuals' behaviour.
It usually takes more than a couple of generations for humanity to catch up with new developments (and their implications) in sexual customs, law and technology. The pill has only been openly available for about 50 years, and 50 years ago it was still technically a crime for any two men in England to indulge in sexual activity together, even in private. Within about 15 years of the relevant law changing ~ though not necessarily as a direct result ~ the sudden arrival of AIDS certainly had an effect on perceptions and behaviour.

Some sincere Christians would probably bewail such developments as the relative 'sexual free-for-all' and apparent decline of the traditional family unit with its values; others might look at how things stand at the moment, and rejoice that the world is becoming more tolerant. It would probably be inappropriate for us to comment further on these matters!

Answer 2 covers the most relevant ground, though answers 1 and 4 contain plenty of truth. Only very radical believers would adopt answer 3.

In answer 1, the Catholic church forbids abortion under any circumstances (even such as these) since it would constitute humans terminating a life which was still a uniquely potential-laden gift from God.

Answer 2 would be wrong since there are certain denominations which disapprove of transfusions, believing only God can heal where He wishes to.

Answer 3 would not be acceptable for any Christians who would regard this ~ 'mercy killing' ~ as murder nonetheless, for shortening anyone else's life.

If in answer 4 we were perhaps thinking of the American 'Bible Belt', even in these sad circumstances forgiveness (rather than vengeance) would rightly be the order of the day.

Answers 1 and 4 would be intrusive (however well-meant) and probably off-putting; answer 2 offers a traditional stance on repentance coming before salvation, though the Gospels and Epistles also warn us not to be judgemental. The maxim about 'hating the sin, yet loving the sinner' springs somewhat to mind, though in several of our given examples it was not necessarily today's 'drifter' who was in any way at fault.

We know from the Gospels that Jesus Himself went out of His way to heal and comfort just such marginalised people (in His day, tax-collectors and prostitutes seem often to have been mentioned as examples): for a modern church to welcome them into His wider faith-family and extend His love to them, they need sensitively to approach such individuals in the same sort of ways as He modelled.