| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Those Revoltin' Episcopalians! | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 17 2006, 06:18 AM (2,177 Views) | |
| Piano*Dad | Dec 20 2006, 06:12 AM Post #101 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
I'm no theologian, and I'm a relative newcomer to the Episcopal Church. On the other hand, I do know that the via media is an idea that sets the Anglican communion apart from other Christian denominations. For this reason, the Anglican church can perhaps fairly claim to be a living refutation of the notion that churches must either be one of two starkly different things: social clubs on the one hand or complete and inerrant sets of principles that one must accept in their entirety on the other. The Anglican church found a uniquely tolerant way (unique perhaps within Christianity) to manage conflict by separating core ideas (a very small set of things) from traditional practices and beliefs (a much larger set). In the 1500s this allowed two people sitting next to each other at a service to believe very different things about the host during communion. Meanwhile, on the continent RC's, L's and C's were busily butchering each other over the same insubstantial, or should I say transubstantial, things. It is that tolerance -- intellectual tolerance as well as personal tolerance -- that drew me to the Episcopal Church in the first place. Faith, tradition, and reason combine in interesting ways in this church. We're now fighting over whether homosexuality is in the faith (core idea) part of the religion or in the tradition portion of things. I have no idea how this will all turn out. But I'm not convinced that Dewey's position that "homosexuality is sinful, but..." will win the day. Bishop Robinson does not seem to view his behavior as sinful or as part of life 'beyond the fall' (although I could be mistaken about his beliefs). The fight is more substantial than that. It may be about walling off portions of St. Paul as reflecting the traditions of the time instead of thinking about them as core church doctines. The Nicene Creed is faith, in this view, but St. Paul's more bigoted words only reflect St. Paul, and others (who can remain within the church) are not compelled to accept him. |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Dec 20 2006, 06:48 AM Post #102 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
Surely you don't think I'm going to give you the best synopsis?
|
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Dec 20 2006, 07:04 AM Post #103 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
You've got a more basic question than that: Are the Pauline Letters Divinely inspired? If you say "yes", we're back down to the simple question of what parts of the Bible do you believe? That of course is one of those inerrancy questions we fundies are so fond of....
|
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| AlbertaCrude | Dec 20 2006, 08:51 AM Post #104 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
I, for one, am not sure if the Pauline letters were divinely inspired any more than I can accept the Koran is the world God. |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Dec 20 2006, 09:03 AM Post #105 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
This is the differentiation made by Calvin, between what he called the "essential tenets" of the Reformed faith, and what were considered "adiaphora" - secondary issues on which believers could disagree. Most churches, not only the Episcopalians, have similar differentiation.
This Presbyterian would suggest that you may want to read up a bit more about the history of Anglican tolerance, PD.
Neither am I, actually.
No, he doesn't, and neither do most of the people who support him, and neither do most of the Presbyterians arguing for gay ordination in the PCUSA. I've said here previously that my position doesn't please anyone. The more traditional bristle at my interpretation of scripture to support the position; the more liberal bristle that I still consider homosexual acts to be sinful. My position has something for everyone to hate. That's okay, I like it. On the other hand, as I've also said before: I believe that every single ordained person also holds the belief that some sinful part or parts of his or her existence is not sinful; and they neither ask forgiveness for them, nor do they ever really turn away from them. I do not believe that this fact, in and of itself, is automatic sufficient grounds to determine that a person has not received a genuine call from God to an ordained ministry. I believe that this is part of the inescapable insidiousness of our fall from grace, the "depravity," as a Calvinist would say, inherent in our nature. To say that we can perfectly comply with any single aspect of what God would require of us - and that even includes having a perfect and complete understanding of the extent of our own sinfulness - then we could have some claim that our salvation was of our own doing. While others may, I don't believe this theological concept. I believe that at every single step of the process of our salvation and reconciliation with God, our own understanding, submission, and actions come up incomplete, insufficient. I believe that Christ's life, death, and resurrection was required precisely to bridge that gap; that we can in no way take any credit for or claim that we've completely met the standard ourselves. So, if we permit this degree of imperfection - the imperfection of not even realizing all of one's sin as even being sinful - in one, we should offer even-handed treatment of another who has otherwise indicated a comprehensive "package" that shows the person to be worthy of ordained call. Also, even a cursory review of practically every single person that God used throughout the Bible shows that God all but universally used "flawed goods" - in some cases, really flawed goods - to forward God's will in creation. David? Adulterer, coveter, and murderer. Solomon? His extravagant palace lifestyle virtually bankrupted the nation and caused its dissolution. Abraham, Sarah, and a bunch others? Didn't trust God at various times. Jacob? A hustler and con man his entire life. I could go on, but the fact remains that God often uses - in fact, you could make an argument that he seems to be deliberately choosing - people who, to put it mildly, "had issues" contrary to God's ideal, and who dealt with these issues through their entire lives. The irony is that none of these people, who have so powerfully ministered God's will to humanity, would hold up under the scrutiny of today's humanly-established ordination standards. My pont isn't that there should be no standards. Rather, it's that we have to understand the legitimate application of the standards. This includes recognition that God speaks to humanity through ways we often don't expect, from directions and people we don't expect. A prophet Moses, a leader of his people, who was a disaster at speaking in public. The apostle Paul, who suffered similarly, having people complain that his written words were powerful, but they weren't impressed when they met him in person. Tax collectors. Prostitutes. A poor baby born in a stable. God's ways, and God's wisdom, often make humanity's ways and wisdom mere foolishness. We need to continually be aware of that reality. The simple noncompliance with a single, particular standard is not sufficient evidence in and of itself, to refuse to consider that a call that a person is sensing may be legitimate. And if we use these standards in such a way, we're denying God. We're claiming authority over God's. And we're sinning at least as badly as the person we're so asymmetrically passing judgment on.
It might surprise you to know that my beliefs in this matter are very much formed on the basis of the bigoted writings of the apostle Paul.
|
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Piano*Dad | Dec 20 2006, 10:29 AM Post #106 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
OK, ya got in a zinger there. I'll stand by my assertion that the Anglican tradition has some fundamentals within it that make tolerance a more likely outcome. I'm well aware that life was no bed of roses for Catholics in the early years of the Anglican church. On the other hand, the aggressiveness of the counterreformation and the conflict with Spain created a somewhat existential crisis that worked against tolerance and moderation in that period, especially against Catholics. Yet England never had a Bartholomew's Day massacre (which shocked the English). And I'm also perfectly aware that the dissenters of the 1700s faced substantial discrimination by the 'established church.' Establishment often does that. Yet the evolution away from establishment in England seems, by historical standards, rather gentle. I'll give some credit to the compromises built into Anglicanism from Elizabeth onwards. Back on topic, ultimately Episcopalians will have to decide whether they can live within a structure that does not rely on Pauline condemnation to prohibit people like Robinson from answering the call. |
![]() |
|
| Piano*Dad | Dec 20 2006, 10:36 AM Post #107 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
BTW, what is the "warn" button below my avatar. I don't seem to see it anywhere else. Does this only appear for new folks who can be spanked by their forum elders?
|
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Dec 20 2006, 10:58 AM Post #108 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I wouldn't. I believe that while a person's sexuality certainly affects other aspects of his or her life, it is not suffiently all-encompassing to be the sole identifier of their being, and certainly not sufficient to identify whether one's call is genuine.
Yes, ours is rather rigorous in this regard, too.
I would generally agree with that statement, and I'd say that it applied to our system too, with the exception that our system starts out with the presumption that God doesn't limit the call to ordained service strictly to single males.
And yet, I believe, whether those very sins or others, the bishop does indeed ordain people who have sin in their lives, even sin that the person does not feel is sin, and for which he feels no need to repent. Every single time.
I'm not sure how or where you got the impression that I'm talking about trading vices for vices, since I've never said or even remotely implied anything like it. But the quote that you cited when making this comment was merely my recognition that every human can at best only be an imperfect witness to the ideal of God.
I've said before that I believe that the aspect of human being that determines sexual attraction is innate - genetic, or similarly structural and deeply embedded in the person. I don't see it as an issue of "getting healthy," I just see it as a matter of fact.
That is correct. I have never taken issue with a gay or lesbian person who sought ordination while living a chaste lifestyle. The somewhat recent change in my beliefs is only regarding those who wish to seek ordination but not live a chaste life. And here's where I differ from most of the Presbyterians who are battling the "gay issue" in the church today. The Book of Order, our set of denominational laws, sets the stipulation that all ordained members of the church (not just clergy) must adhere to a somewhat higher standard of theological and moral conformity to their standards. I agree with this stipulation (and it's here where Jolly's synopsis from last night falls short). One of these standards is a clause that says that ordained members are expected to live a life of "fidelity in marriage or chastity in singleness." In other words, no sex of any kind, gay or straight, outside of marriage. A large number of people are arguing to have this requirement removed. I beleive that many of them are arguing for its removal for the implications that this would have on straight ordained at least as much as on gays, but at this point the issue is being framed predominantly as a gay thing. I disagree with these people, even while I support the possibility of gay ordinations. I support this stipulation, and I want it to remain as-is. However, my issue is with another clause in the BoO. That is the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Here's where I would call for change. I believe that the church should permit same-sex marriage, unions, blessings, whatever the church wants to call a committed same-sex commitment - one that would allow for the expression of a committed, monogamous relationship; that would encourage intimate human relationship and foster love; and that would offer an alternative to promiscuity and the concept that sex is simply a biomechanical function to make one feel good physically. I've written in the past that I believe, based on the words of both Jesus and the apostle Paul, that marriage, despite the blessed status it has from God, is at best a compromise. Inherent in its structure is the requirement that the individuals now have a divided loyalty to God - they now have a loyalty to each other that competes for our loyalty to God - and that this is actually not in accordance with God's ideal for humans. Despite this shortfall from God's ideal, marriage yields other benefits and blessings, and as such, is considered a worthy tradeoff - a very worthy tradeoff - in return for this shortcoming. [I know that you view marriage quite differently. I simply don't view it the same way. Conceded; we can save ourselves both a lot of typing on that issue.] Back to the point, I believe that if God is therefore willing to accept, and bless, the something-less-than-ideal of male/female marriage (put more bluntly, the institution of male/female marriage has sin inherently embedded within it), in part as a way to prevent our promiscuity and lustful urges, then I believe that we are hypocritical and missing God's true intent if the same avenue is not available to gay and lesbian people who cannot curb their sexual urges any more than we can. I believe that this would be no more celebratory of sin than male/female marriage is celebration of sin.
I agree with this. I simply believe that the one to answer the question of a person's suitablilty is ultimately God, not us; and even to the extent that we administer it, that we are currently fulfilling our administrative charge in a restrictive manner that is not in keeping with, and at times is often frustrating, God's will. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Dec 20 2006, 12:24 PM Post #109 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
just say nice things about us Catholics and you won't have to worry about that warning light.
|
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Daniel\ | Dec 20 2006, 07:17 PM Post #110 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
I am not a forum elder and I never will be and I would never want to be (lol) but: the warning on the screen never goes away but other people can't see it. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Dec 21 2006, 12:36 AM Post #111 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Canonically, a significant part of the Catholic formation system seeks to seriously diminish that possibility. The seminarian is charged to select a spiritual director (I don't know if spiritual direction is part of the reformation communions), and the spiritual direction and theological formation are to be "harmoniously blended" such that the seminarians "simultaneously develop the requisite human maturity and acquire the spirit of the Gospel and a closer relationship with Christ" (can 244). They are also charged "to learn to cultivate those virtues which are highly prized in human relationships, in such a way that they can arrive at an appropriate harmony between human and spiritual values" (can 245). They are formed chiefly in the celebration of the Eucharist, in the liturgy of the hours, in devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, to approach the sacrament of confession frequently, to have a confessor "to whom he can trustfully reveal his conscience", and to make a spiritual retreat each year(can 246). Given the method and intensity and scrutiny of seminarians -- one can of course always lie one's way through the system -- it seems unlikely that given proper formation (which was conspicuously lacking in many American seminaries immediately following the Second Vatican Council and well into the 90s) that a seminarian would approach ordination either reserving a sin for himself or unaware of the Church's teaching on a particular sin that he was afflicted with. That is not to say that any one is without sin, but the Church has a much more subtle and developed understanding of sin and the operation of grace than the reformed traditions seem to hold. you wrote "To say that the hypothetical guy from my earlier post should be denied being considered for ordination because his homosexuality would limit his witness or effectiveness in the office any more than someone else's different sets of vices would, is to make a judgment that I don't think we're qualified to make, and is acutally a mistake that is inconsistent with Scripture." More than remotely implying -- you seem to be suggesting that any serious moral defect is permissible such that there is no difference between denying ordination because of homosexuality than because of someone else's different set of vices. That sentence only makes sense if you consider homosexuality to be a vice, or a moral defect. I am still not clear whether you think it so or not.
So drunkards and womanizers and irascible people and homosexuals should be ordained because it it a matter of fact that they are that way? Again, Dewey, and I am not intending to be obtuse, i am not clear if you think that homosexual behavior is sinful/ a vice /a moral defect/ a result of the fall or is it salutary/ beneficial / consonant with a path of holiness/ part of God's plan. OK, that is a matter for your communion to figure out.
Here is where you totally lost me. Are you predicating this understanding on Gen 2? That Eve was a concession? Why not on Gen 1 "male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it." How can God command Adam and Eve to sin? I am truly shocked (and in charity, I am not being hyperbolic) that the Prebyterian view of marriage is even farther away from the Catholic view than I ever imagined. Not only is it non sacramental (that the love for spouse is coterminous with love for God, a positive means of grace, a participation in Christ's love, and thereby salvific in itself) but that it is actually a celebration or an institutionalization of sin. That to me is truly a horrific notion. That in chosing to love your spouse you are becoming an enemy of God. That the second greatest commandment prevents the first greatest commandment. That the action which brings forth human life brings spiritual death. For that is what sins does: it kills, and puts enmity between us and God. How can marriage be embedded with sin? Monstrous. I can only hope that I am misreading you. Please clarify. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Daniel\ | Dec 21 2006, 01:27 AM Post #112 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Dec 21 2006, 01:59 AM Post #113 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
For Catholics asceticism cannot be the ideal (I assume you mean celibate asceticism), because if that "ideal" were realized we would all cease to exist temporally. That would not be ideal, and quite contrary to the commandment to be fruitful and multiply. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Daniel\ | Dec 21 2006, 02:02 AM Post #114 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
|
|
| |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Dec 21 2006, 11:19 AM Post #115 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Hope you bought the big tub of popcorn, Daniel. My reply is going to take a long time to write, and I'm swamped today. In the words of that great spiritual advisor, the Magic 8-Ball, "Try Again Later"...
|
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Dec 21 2006, 11:40 AM Post #116 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Me too!!!! ![]() (BTW, I've been swamped as well, which is why i post that at 1:36 AM)
|
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Dec 21 2006, 11:43 AM Post #117 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
You're talking to a guy that buys popcorn in 50lb sacks (that's the truth, BTW). Butter, shmutter...somebody hand me some of that trans-fat, industrial strength, instant by-pass, artifical stuff....
|
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| George K | Dec 21 2006, 11:54 AM Post #118 |
|
Finally
|
How much space would 50 lb. of popped popcorn take up. You could probably fill a garage with that! |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Dec 21 2006, 03:36 PM Post #119 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Reply coming. It will be in multiple posts. Please wait till you see the double line at the end of the final post before commenting, so it all stays together... |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Dec 21 2006, 03:37 PM Post #120 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
If that is true as written, I’m sorry to say that I believe that they fail every single time. I agree that the spiritual formation system should, and does, rigorously test its candidates, and in general provides for a clergy that is overall more in compliance with the requirements of Christian discipleship than is the overall population of the laity. But I do not believe that any person is free of imperfectly sensing the fullness of their sinfulness. Even in your own words, you refer to seriously diminishing, not eliminating, this issue. I like the words “seriously diminish,” but I believe that what the ordination process does is to produce clergy whose degree of sinfulness is “seriously diminished,” in comparison to the general laity – not that the process produces a preponderance of clergy who have a complete, perfect sense of the fullness of their sinfulness, and only a small percentage who don’t have such perfect self-knowledge.
It is the case, on multiple levels, in our denomination as well. An Inquirer to the Ministry of Word and Sacrament is to be under the supervision of not only the individual's home clergy, but also by an ordained elder currently serving on the local church’s Session; another liason from the Presbytery, plus advisory staff from the seminary.
Even setting aside the implication that those of us in the “reformed traditions” are not part of “the Church,” I would dispute the main point of this comment.
Well for the record, you’ve now switched your comment, from saying originally that I was talking about some trading of one sin for another. Now you’ve taken a second stab at it, and while you’ve gotten a little closer, you’ve still missed the boat. You and others have taken issue with my stance on the grounds that it would permit a person to continue sinning without either recognition of the sin or the actual repentance of it (i.e., it points to a lack of conviction of the sin), and that this should be grounds for denying ordination. Here again is part of the reason why it’s annoying that the issue is assumed to be an argument about the gay issue; I consider it a much more general principle. My point is that the mere existence of a lack of a person’s conviction that some particular sin (regardless of what it may be) is actually sin, should not be automatic grounds for denial of ordination. And the reason that I say this is that I am convinced that every person, no matter how devout, continually through his or her life, will deal with sin that they fail to acknowledge is actually sinful. I believe that this is a universal aspect of fallen human condition. People will deal with these issues, is God’s time and their own, over the entire span of their lives. They may come to grips with the issue years down the road. They may never. That’s part of their own walk with God and life of discipleship, and during that time it is quite conceivable that this person will be no less effective a leader or minister to God’s will, than another person – who is merely fighting the exact same battle, only with other particular issues. The true direction of my belief, though, has nothing to do with these “different” sins at all. Just the opposite, actually. I’m talking about the same sin – the sin of lack of full, complete self-awareness of one’s own sinfulness, as I’ve said earlier. This is the toleration that all ordaining bodies, whether they care to admit it or not, grant to every single candidate that comes before them and receives ordination. Therefore, it is not logical, not just, not equitable, to deny a sexually active gay or lesbian candidate for ordination simply on the grounds that there is a lack of full, complete conviction of his or her own sin.
I have stated my positions rather clearly in the past, and much of them have been stated earlier in this same thread. Still, here is a detailed summary, one more time. I believe that homosexuality is a human characteristic that is innate in our post-fallen nature. I believe that it is genetic, or structural and deeply embedded in our beings in some other way as to make the argument of whether it is or is not genetic to be a pointless and silly argument. Simply put, I believe that homosexuality is simply a given reality of current human existence, and is something that is natural within our post-fall being. Nevertheless, God created humanity with a given (heterosexual) design and genetic imprint. Within given parameters, for humans to engage in heterosexual activity is in conformance with God’s ideal, established for humanity before the fall. Conversely, homosexual activity is not in keeping with God’s ideal. The briefest definition of sin that I can imagine is “any thought, action, or situation that is not in accordance with God’s ideal for humanity and creation.” Therefore, homosexual sexual activity, not being in conformance with God’s ideal, is sinful by definition. To me, this is indisputable. But what is also indisputable is that we do not live in a pre-Fall existence. We all live in the reality of a post-Fall creation. That carries messy implications for all humans’ relationship with God, and the issue of homosexuality is only one – and far from the most significant – of these messy issues. I have written in the past that because homosexual activity is a sin, any believer should take measures to attempt either living a chaste lifestyle, or clinical attempts to alter their sexual orientation. There is evidence that in some cases, the re-orientation works, and if it does, I believe that is the best way to go. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Dec 21 2006, 03:39 PM Post #121 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
(part 2) But the reality is that those who can have their sexual orientation adjusted is a very, very small percentage of the homosexual population. And homosexuals are no more likely, or better equipped, to live a chaste life than are heterosexuals. So what is left for a homosexual – particularly, although not exclusively, homosexuals who are part of the Christian faith? They are, I believe, in a situation caused by physiology. They’re told by many that their sexual orientation is a “choice.” Frankly, I can’t imagine anything more ridiculous or intellectually insulting than to think that a person would voluntarily choose a sexual identity that put them at odds with a large percentage of the population – and even/especially, members of the Church, that, assuming we’re discussing gay believers, the person wants very much to be a part of. I can’t imagine choosing a lifestyle that made them such a big target for discrimination, abuse, and hate crimes. I can’t imagine voluntarily placing one’s self in a position where he’s highly likely to develop self-esteem problems, substance abuse issues, even increased suicidal tendencies, trying to anaesthetize himself from the constant negative image of self-worth assigned gays and lesbians in this society. And then, especially to a gay or lesbian person considering issues of faith, voluntarily choosing to wrestle with questions like “This is the way I am. But I believe I’m a child of God. But there’s something wrong with me. Does God make junk? Does God not care about me? Did God create me to be damned from the start because He made me gay?” Yet this is exactly the disturbing, gut-wrenching scenario that so many gays and lesbians have to deal with. It is exactly the situation that we, the Church, have forced any gay or lesbian into dealing with. Is it any wonder that so many gay people have such hostility for Christianity? I understand how this came to be. I understand how we Christians have taken legitimate Biblical injunctions against homosexual activity, and stretched them, through applications at least as much cultural as religious, to browbeat these people, to isolate them, to reject them, to make them at best, second class people, and at worst, part of the reviled class of society. I believe that this double-standard extends not only to the way the Church has treated gays and lesbians in the general population, and not only within the Church itself, but also to the way we have used a person’s homosexuality as a single-point, make or break determination of a candidate’s fitness for ordained service to God. I believe that gays and lesbians are flawed humans, and in the same breath I say, “so what?” I am too, and in no less measure. I do not believe that being gay or lesbian makes a person automatically any more, or less, likely to be called by God to service requiring or worthy of recognition via earthly ordination. Frankly, I believe that God can use gays and lesbians in service to God in ways that would be difficult or impossible for straight believers. We are all parts of one body, someone once said. I do not believe that one’s sexual orientation is an automatic determinant of whether that person should or should not be an ordained part of that body. I cannot look at how gays and lesbians are treated in our society – even realizing that they’ve made great strides in recent years – and not think that we, Church and culture, have committed a terrible sin in dealing with them. I cannot consider how we single out one of the aspects of their lives which the Bible calls sinful – and regarding which I agree – while we maintain a blind eye to so very, very much of the rest of Scriptural explanation of God’s ideal when considering our own level of morality and sanctification. This hypocrisy – visible not just with the gay issue, but in other areas as well – is the one great, stinking, overarching sin of the entire Christian Church, the smell of which reaches to God’s nostrils, and for which every single one of us, ordained or otherwise, will only be able to quake in fear when asked why we permitted it. Homosexuality is genetic, and is not sin. Homosexual activity is a sin. The Church’s response to this sin is an even greater sin. Does that clear up my position?
Yes it is, and this is actually is a good point. Whether I want it to or not, my position presupposes a mindset in the reader that is already relatively in line with the entirety of Reformed, or at least Protestant, tradition – not because it would never be comprehensible to a non-Protestant (whether they agreed with it or not), but it merely springs out of theological viewpoints and traditions that I would need to write a book’s worth of preface to explain. That isn’t deliberate on my part, and I’ve tried to minimize that problem where I’ve noticed it, but I can’t totally avoid it. There will always, no matter the best of intentions on either my part or yours, be a bit of a situation where we seem to be speaking at each other, but slightly out of phase. I wish that weren’t the case; I wish that I did fully understand the intricacies of your theology, and vice versa, regardless of our acceptance of them; but it really won’t ever be completely possible. Your tradition and mine start, from the outset, at very different beliefs for ordination. Our tradition believes that God not only speaks to, and calls, but also deems ordained service worthy of, not only single males, but married males, as well as women. I can certainly understand that for you to agree with my position would require a jump over a gorge three times the width of the one I had to cross in reaching it. I realize that you could read that sentence in a snarky manner, but I don’t mean it that way at all. I’m simply pointing out that you and I are starting from different vantage points in the discussion. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Dec 21 2006, 03:40 PM Post #122 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
(part 3)
I base my beliefs about marriage on the words of Jesus and of the apostle Paul: Some Pharisees came to him, and to test him they asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?” He said to them, “It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.” His disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” But he said to them, “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.” Matthew 19:3-12 Toward the end of this passage, the apostles slide into this issue. Some people say that their comment was an off-the-cuff sort of throwaway expression; others think that the full impact of Jesus’ words had sunken in, and they were making a deeper observation. Either way, Jesus takes the comment and goes with it, saying that in fact, it’s a tough lesson to learn, but the truth is, it is better not to marry if it can be avoided. Then he makes a reference to eunuchs to reinforce this point. While mentioning eunuchs today might make us a little uncomfortable and prompt us to shift in our chairs a bit, it was a far more significant and powerful comment to the Jewish apostles. As you’re undoubtedly aware, eunuchs were far more a part of the world of that time. But the Scriptural references to them from the Hebrew Bible that they would be very aware of (Leviticus 21 and Deuteronomy 23) say without any ambiguity that eunuchs shall not be part of the assembly of God’s people. Yet here is Jesus, using these eunuchs in a way that not only includes the possibility that they have a place at God’s table just like others, but he uses them as an example of teaching a higher way of being a believer, a way that is difficult or impossible for some to accomplish. Of course, as a somewhat related sidebar, eunuchs show up again in a contrary way in the New Testament, in Acts 8:26-40: Then an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Get up and go toward the south to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” (This is a wilderness road.) So he got up and went. Now there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of the Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of her entire treasury. He had come to Jerusalem to worship and was returning home; seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah. Then the Spirit said to Philip, “Go over to this chariot and join it.” So Philip ran up to it and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah. He asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” He replied, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to get in and sit beside him. Now the passage of the scripture that he was reading was this: “Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter, and like a lamb silent before its shearer, so he does not open his mouth. In his humiliation justice was denied him. Who can describe his generation? For his life is taken away from the earth.” The eunuch asked Philip, “About whom, may I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?” Then Philip began to speak, and starting with this scripture, he proclaimed to him the good news about Jesus. As they were going along the road, they came to some water; and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water! What is to prevent me from being baptized?” He commanded the chariot to stop, and both of them, Philip and the eunuch, went down into the water, and Philip baptized him. When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away; the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing. Certainly Philip was aware of the stance regarding eunuchs found in the Torah. So why would he waste his time with this one? Why would he baptize him into the faith? I believe he did because he knew from Jesus’ teaching how to truly interpret Scripture and to discern God’s will regarding the “cleanliness” or “uncleanliness,” the acceptability or unacceptability of people in the eyes of God. I wonder if there were people at the time who would have criticized Philip for baptizing someone who “clearly” didn’t meet the standards for being a part of the family of God. In any case, continuing along the marriage issue: I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has a particular gift from God, one having one kind and another a different kind. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am. But if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion. - 1 Corinthians 7:7-9 |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Dec 21 2006, 03:41 PM Post #123 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
(part 4) And continuing: I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs—how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord. -1 Corinthians 7:32-35 Here, Paul talks about how it would be preferable, in terms of an individual’s relationship with God, and in maintaining one’s focus and loyalty, on God. I believe that these passages, in conjunction with Jesus’ speaking in the earlier passage, make a very strong case for my belief that it is more consistent with God’s ideal to not marry and inherently create a divided loyalty; but that the benefits of marriage are so undeniable that God blesses the institution of marriage even in recognition of its inherent deviation from God’s ideal. More related Scriptural references: Then Peter said, “Look, we have left our homes and followed you.” And he said to them, “Truly I tell you, there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not get back very much more in this age, and in the age to come eternal life.” – Matthew 19:28-30 Now large crowds were traveling with him; and he turned and said to them, “Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not carry the cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.” – Luke 14:25-27 Before anyone think I’m saying something I’m not, I do not believe that these quotes of Jesus imply that a believer must physically leave his family, or that he must literally “hate” his wife and family members, or that family love and ties are in any way bad. That’s not what Jesus is saying. Whatever else might be hypothesized about these quotes, one thing that is undeniably clear is that Jesus is saying that God’s ideal is to place one’s relationship with God above all relationships with physical family members, wife included – that family inherently creates a divided loyalty that is contrary to God’s ideal. And, as I stated much earlier on: “Sin” is defined as any thought, action, or situation that deviates from God’s ideal. Therefore, there is s sinful aspect inherent in the institution of marriage. Not one that isn’t more than offset by other benefits, concepts, and lessons that God deems important and blessed, but it is nonetheless inherently present in the union. I do not believe that the idea that sin is inherent in marriage to be in any way derogatory, diminishing, or offensive to the traditional analogy of Christ’s relationship to the Church as that of Bride and Bridegroom; because I believe that any analogy or similar linguistic vehicle of describing God; or our relationship with God; or to convey the way that God works his will in creation; or the nature of the efficacy of Christ’s atonement; are all at best only highly imperfect ways of conveying concepts that we humans cannot possibly fully comprehend. I believe that any such use of language is inadequate, and that in any case, at some point, the analogies used in all of those instances eventually fails due to the differences between God and humans. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Dec 21 2006, 03:42 PM Post #124 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
(part 5) I believe that the concept of the inherent existence of sin is important to this discussion, because my beliefs have been disagreed with in the past on the basis that same-sex marriage would inherently include the existence of sin within it, and that this would make it unlike traditional male/female marriage. The Scriptural references listed above would argue differently. It is also important in that, as these scriptures state, God established and blessed male/female marriage, despite this inherent condition, not only for procreative purposes, and not only for experiencing intimacy and love, and not only for physical pleasure. No, these Scriptures say that marriage was given to us as a means to provide for our sexual appetites if we could not control ourselves and live a chaste, non-promiscuous life. So all of these things build to my belief that 1. We cannot treat homosexuals differently than God deals with us. We cannot treat homosexuals differently, or hold them to a different, more stringent, or higher standard of sinless life than we are able to achieve or require of ourselves. To do so is sinful. 2. God tells us that the ideal is a chaste life of undivided loyalty to God; yet God still blesses marriage as from God despite its inherent divided loyalty. 3. Therefore, it is logical, and moral, and in accordance with Scriptural injunctions regarding how to treat each other with justice, fairness, mercy, and tolerance, that homosexuals be granted the exact same options for living as we are. 4. Further, this same concept carries into the governance of the church, and especially in terms of ordination standards. We cannot treat homosexuals differently, or hold them to a different, more stringent, or higher standard of sinless life than we are able to achieve or require of ourselves. To do so is sinful. 5. In the case of the PCUSA, the church recognizes the scriptural standard for ordained members of “fidelity in marriage or chastity in singleness.” 6. Therefore, it is logical, and moral, and in accordance with Scriptural injunctions regarding how to treat each other with justice, fairness, mercy, and tolerance, that homosexuals be granted the same options for living their lives. 7. Given that, it is therefore logical, fair, merciful, and tolerant, and entirely in keeping with the full intent of the Gospel of Christ and all of the teachings of God, to permit same-sex marriages, unions, blessings, or other similar provision which permits such option to a life of chastity. ========= |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Dec 21 2006, 07:39 PM Post #125 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Thank you for this. Before going any further, is this Presbyterianism we are talking about, or Deweyism? |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |










11:33 AM Jul 11