tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post112445831475618755..comments2024-02-15T03:32:25.686-05:00Comments on Preludium, Anglican and Episcopal futures: Some Thoughts on Sex, Marriage and SinMark Harrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06871096746243771489noreply@blogger.comBlogger58125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1126788888455817452005-09-15T08:54:00.000-04:002005-09-15T08:54:00.000-04:00Jim:I thought this thread had died. I am glad to ...Jim:<BR/><BR/>I thought this thread had died. I am glad to see it not quite dead as this thread was actually fun and polite and engaging.<BR/><BR/>Interesting comments, too bad most were not true.<BR/><BR/>Paul knew nothing about marriage? Have you actually read the New Testament or the Septuigent? Both seem to have a great deal to say about marriage, both monogomous and polygamy. As an expert on the Septuigent, he certainly knew what it had to say, and much of that is reflected in his epistles. Of course, there are times where Paul admits that he does not have a word from the Lord, but only opinion. <BR/><BR/>Marriage was not available to the peasant world for 1100 years? True, the upper classes used it to transfer property and cement family alliances, but records also show that numerous other marriages occurred. In fact, I can remember church historians arguing that the betrothal ceremonies came right out of the peasant class' attempt to uphold Paul's teachings. I am not a sociologist, but the trothing did allow the couple to begin living as man and wife until a priest made it to the region to finalize (cement) the marriage. I assume that is why a marriage ceremony was part of the regular Eucharist service and not its own "set apart" service as it is today.<BR/><BR/>My guess is that Timothy knew precisely what he was writing. After all, he heard all the teachings firsthand, and Jesus certainly taught that divorce/remarriage were not at all acceptable. Indeed, He tightened the noose with respect to adultery.<BR/><BR/>The better question is whether the Holy Spirit can/does act counter to the revealed will of God (Father and Son)? Those of us that believe that Hegel, Schleiermacher et al described the Spirit's work accurately hold that the Spirit can and does? Those of us who hold to the early church fathers' teachings (particularly John of Damascus, the Gregorys, and other Cappadocians)hold that the "dance" of the Trinity prohibits one of the Persons from acting against the other two.<BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/>JBAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1126034731211308792005-09-06T15:25:00.000-04:002005-09-06T15:25:00.000-04:00It is interesting to me how many times we (all) ap...It is interesting to me how many times we (all) appeal to the historic beliefs of the faithful without checking to see what they were. Our concept of, "Christian marrige" as a monogamous, life long, volentary relationship between one male and one female is relativly modern. We appeal to Paul who knew nothing of it, to ancients who lived in a world which held females to be property, to history we cannot document or that never existed.<BR/><BR/>Marrige was generally not available to peasants from about 400 to 1500 AD because they owned no property and that was what marrige did -- it used the transaction still echoed in our liturgy "Who gives this woman in marrige?" to cement property relationships! <BR/><BR/>We now choose to hear the Epistle of Timothy as a call to faithful monogamy by all (well all straights.) But in fact, the author was writing at a time of general acceptance of polygamy, and did not discuss his reasoning. It is at least as reasonable to suggest that he thought one woman was about all a bishop could care for given his other obligations. It is also likely that the passage has nothing to do with remarrige. Remember a male could have four wives in Jewish culture and as many as he could afford in much of the contemporary world.<BR/><BR/>It seems to me that we ask the wrong question. Rather than, what does the Bible permit based on history, we should ask what the Spirit is calling us to do now as we live into Jesus' kingdom. <BR/><BR/>FWIW<BR/>jimBJimBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17312606954135884910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1125756872212249292005-09-03T10:14:00.000-04:002005-09-03T10:14:00.000-04:00I sure wish this thread would have continued. Som...I sure wish this thread would have continued. Some of the vitriol and mean-spiritedness seemed lost and you were each beginning to engage one another and the heart of the matters. Please reconsider. Some of us lurkers enjoy the good arguing.<BR/><BR/>GeorgeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1125233271219129222005-08-28T08:47:00.000-04:002005-08-28T08:47:00.000-04:00Forgive me. One more observation.Since this is a ...Forgive me. One more observation.<BR/><BR/>Since this is a blog about Anglican Futures (according to its URL), I can't help but note that this discussion may relate to what is perhaps the most important factor affecting ECUSA's future -- its declining birthrate (<A HREF="http://www.episcopalchurch.org/documents/2004GrowthReport(1).pdf" REL="nofollow">see the important article by Kirk Hadaway</A>). Is it possible that part of this is due to our all-too-easy separation of sex and child-bearing, now made possible by medical technology? The bearing and raising of children, after all, require a man and a woman in all long-term commitment. Children born in a non-marital sexual relationship (excepting perhaps an artificially-contrived birth long-term lesbian relationship) is often disastrous, thus avoided or aborted. One commentator unhappily quoted the statement, "<A HREF="http://www.techcentralstation.com/090104I.html" REL="nofollow">the future of the world belongs to illiberal religions</A>," since they still bear children, even in this country.<BR/><BR/>More grist for the mill.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1125199099431277392005-08-27T23:18:00.000-04:002005-08-27T23:18:00.000-04:00Mark and Bill:I recognize that you folks are weari...Mark and Bill:<BR/><BR/>I recognize that you folks are wearing out on this subject. I don't blame you. Yet I believe this discussion actually gets at the heart of the matter dividing us. Usually the issue dividing Episcopalians is presented in terms of homophobia, or issues of power and control. I don't believe that is the case, and presenting it in these terms is a failure to authentically hear the other side. For instance, Bill seems to indicate in an earlier note that the issue is the inclusion or exclusion of GLBT folks. There may be a few conservative Episcopalians who do think that way, but I think most would recognize that if we start excluding certain classes of "sinners," we would ultimately all need to be excluded. I think there is a tendency to paint all reasserters in the image of Fred Phelps, just as there is a tendency to paint all reappraisers in the image of Jack Spong. (And on this point I do acknowledge Bill's affirmation of the bodily resurrection of Christ.) The issue is not inclusion or exclusion of gays and lesbians, but whether same-sex blessings and actively homosexual clergy are appropriate; or, to put it more broadly, whether or not sexual expression outside the bounds of matrimony inveighs against the Christian faith.<BR/><BR/>I agree with you, Mark, that the statement, "Anyone who purported to be Christian and supported sex outside 'Christian marriage' was damned, or perhaps doomed," is wrong and disturbing. I believe in a God of grace and forgiveness, and I believe He fully understands the confusion of our present culture and present age. However, this does not answer the question of whether or not sexual expression outside the bounds of matrimony inveighs against the Christian faith.<BR/><BR/>Bill, I agree with you that poverty, the distribution of wealth, and the Iraqi war are all important issues that Christians need to address based on the Gospel. I do not agree that human sexuality is not an important issue. My reasons, besides all the things mentioned in my previous post, is, for one thing, that our sexuality is a vital part of who we are. For another, its expression can have such a tremendous impact for good or ill. It can give expression to Christ in his relationship to his Church; it can, especially in its exploitative and dehumanizing forms, give expression to the demonic. It seems to me that the incarnation of the Word and the bodily resurrection of Christ make a strong statement about the importance of the human body and its use. I call to mind the words of Paul, spoken concerning this very issue, "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you were bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body." As Christians who emphasize the sacraments, we of all people must recognize the vital connection between the spiritual and physical. I again agree with you that the larger issues of the world must be addressed, but they should not be used to evade the personal issues of our lives, or the integrity of the witness of the Church to what it has received. Also, I believe the loss of these traditional sexual boundaries have had a devastating impact especially upon the poor (again for many of the reasons addressed in my previous post), where the breakdown of the family has been far more prominent. I have read that a number of African American clergy have come to the same conclusion. I don't believe your ambiguous sexual mores prove particularly helpful for those who lack education, resources, solid communal support, and good health care. Perhaps this is one more reason why the Episcopal Church, while being very concerned <B>for</B> the poor, has never succeeded in being a church <B>of</B> the poor.<BR/><BR/>I realize that a significant segment in our culture wish to redefine fornication. But should not this kind of obfuscation (for surely that's what it is) be resisted?<BR/><BR/>I fully understand why you are all tired of this issue. But I must regret that its discussion will end. Again, this is at the heart of the division. Not the many things we seem to think.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1125184782047988622005-08-27T19:19:00.000-04:002005-08-27T19:19:00.000-04:00Wendy:I believe if you spent some time in a church...Wendy:<BR/><BR/>I believe if you spent some time in a church history class, you might well be surprised at the amount of consensus. By the time of the Muratorian canon, around 200 AD, the church in Rome had recognized many of the same books as we now recognize. What shocked me more in my sojourn through the formation of the canon was the fact that Origen, Eusebius, and others, in different parts of the world and without the benefits of e-mail, had recognized the same works. When one expands the study to include each church's list of "disputed works," the results are nearly identical. That churches in different parts of the world discerned the exact same thing nearly simultaneously makes it all the more impressive to me. Were supporters of the Shepherd of Hermas or the Revelation of Peter disappointed? Most likely. Ironically, the parts of Scripture that we are throwing at one another or ignoring, depending on one's perspective, were well received and their inspiration seldom questioned.<BR/><BR/>At least we can agree on one thing ;) I very much agree with Tom's and your claim that we need to know what the author intended. To many of us on the conservative side, the arguments regarding the presenting issue have ignored just that. What did Paul mean by "malakoi" and "arsenokotai," since those passages are most of the NT's prohibition against such behavior (I think both sides agree on that)? I have heard/read very few arguments which sound plausible that we just cannot be sure of what they meant because the words are dubious or uncertain in meaning, as if Paul woke up one day and forgot his septuigent. But these are debates that ought to be worked out in seminary and forums like this (much as Mark's original post which stirred everyone up--congrats on 60+ posts Mark!), and not in our pulpits.<BR/><BR/>One last thing until my off day for Bill. And please do not take this as offensive or demeaning in any way. I am truly trying to understand your perspective. So if it offends, I apologize in advance and ignore the question. Integrity's focus is for the blessing and inclusion of G/L/B/T's in the life of the church. How do you, theologically and pastorally, draw the distinction between committed gay and lesbian relationships, and committed transgendered and bi-sexual relationships as someone fully cognizant of all the pressures involved? From my caveman perspective, I have heard social justice arguments in favor, ontological arguments which demand inclusion, and analagous arguments for the relationships. None have bothered to make a distinction between the four (they may not champion one of the other three positions, but one can simply substitute another and the argument sounds the same). As I stated in another thread, I have found them to be unconvincing, but I am still willing to listen. And, frankly, I found your willingness to deny them interesting. Again, I apologize if I offended you or got too personal. <BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/>JBAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1125169860892483272005-08-27T15:11:00.000-04:002005-08-27T15:11:00.000-04:00Sorry, Mark. We've cross posted. I'm more than ...Sorry, Mark. We've cross posted. I'm more than willing to give it a rest too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1125169685341746042005-08-27T15:08:00.000-04:002005-08-27T15:08:00.000-04:00RB--The real issue is what constitutes "fornicatio...RB--<BR/><BR/>The real issue is what constitutes "fornication." Perhaps we have come to a different understanding of this admittedly apostolic requirement. Christians are called to live lives of holiness in every area of our lives, including sexuality. As for the "apostles' teaching and fellowship," one could make a far better case that this includes the collective ownership of goods (See Acts 4). It certainly has more to do with the words and deeds of Jesus and his bodily resurrection than it does with sex. But I do admit that we are called to abstain from fornication. If only we could come up with a single definition of what that word means. <BR/><BR/>It is not a purely historical question, but as Rowan Williams observes, the problem with many liberals is that they don't expect to be questioned by history at all. The problem with many conservatives is that they don't expect to be surprised by what they find there. The question for us is, given what fornication meant then, say to Paul, what does it mean for us now? It means that we aim at sexual expression within the boundaries of relationships that are lifelong in intent, characterized by mutuality, fidelity, and charity, recognizing that we sometimes fall short. I don't see why premarital sex, which falls short of the ideal, can't provide some of the goods of marriage. I suspect that most traditionalists want firm boundaries with clear rules. Even a little pastoral experience would show just how much ambiguity there is here. <BR/><BR/>Some buy the one man, one woman line. Others don't. Still others will attempt, no doubt, to press further, as the Newark statement did. Some will go beyond anything Newark envisioned. I've already remarked that one of the ablest responses to the Newark statement, Philip Turner's Forward Movement pamphlet, is perfectly consistent with D039 as far as I can tell. I honestly can't see what the fuss is about. Except in cases that involve violence or degradation, God has more important things to worry about than sex.<BR/><BR/>Bush and Blair continue to wage a criminal war against the Iraqi people. AG Gonzalez continues to head the Department of "Justice" in spite of his open advocacy of torture. And the poor get poorer, while the rich get richer, climbing to power on the backs of women, poor folk, queer folk, and people of color. The Bible has a lot more to say about that, for sure.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1125169442734394962005-08-27T15:04:00.000-04:002005-08-27T15:04:00.000-04:00rb said"I note that Mark notes many nonmarital sex...rb said<BR/><BR/>"I note that Mark notes many nonmarital sexual relationships that appear to be healthy, but I find this evaluation subjective, and wonder about the criteria that determines health in a relationship. The current results of nonmarital sexual relationships in our society -- a huge abortion rate, widespread STDs, many unwed pregnancies and the resultant impoverishment of many women -- are these to be regarded as healthy? Mark, are you so sure these young people would tell you if they found it necessary to get an abortion or if they contracted an STD?"<BR/><BR/>Well... RB, you are quite right there are many unhealth, difficult and damaging nonmarital sexual relationships and activities. And, I am not at all sure that young people in general would tell me about sexual problems. However, I can say that my own two children have. Have they told me everything? Probably not.<BR/><BR/>There are many unhealthy, difficult and damaging martial sexual relationships and activities. And I am sure my parishoners have not told me much about those as well, except when they wanted my help. They want my help less, I think, than my children.<BR/><BR/>The issue I raised, way back when, when this thread got started was this "I share all the concerns that sex not become a cursive activity, a hurtful one, or that it become an idol (and we have idols all around), I believe that sex particularly before Christian marriage can be an important part of the awareness, and even the joy, that one can bring to the covenant of marriage. I make these observations with no desire to enter into a protracted argument about moral rightness. "<BR/><BR/>I was mostly concerned to say that sex outside or before marriage may not necessarily be wrong. <BR/><BR/>Some on the thread seem to suggest that it is always wrong. <BR/><BR/>No one much wants to use the word "situational" because that word now seems to be confused with an ethic of "do what you want." <BR/><BR/>So perhaps what I am working toward is a way to call people to holy relationships (and marriage a high example of such relationships) and at the same time not use condemnation as part of the call. That is not because I don't ever believe condemnation is called for, but because I don't believe condemnation is called for all the time.<BR/><BR/>I am quite interested in the fact that this thread has gone on at some length. I have found the discussion interesting, but I wonder if it is time to let it rest for a while. The thread has transformed itself into a variety of other commentaries and they seem less interesting.<BR/><BR/>For those interested in knowing, I do preach and teach regularly, celebrate the Eucharist regularly, and have been until two weeks ago on the staff of a church, expect to be appointed to another position soon (making retirement - although a reality - a rather modest one), wear a collar, and speak as honestly as I can about all sorts of matters, but mostly preach about from the Gospel reading each Sunday.<BR/><BR/>And still I wonder at absolutist statements that say "anyone who porported to be Christian and supported sex outside 'Christian marriage' was damned, or perhaps doomed." <BR/><BR/>And that wonder is still there.Mark Harrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06871096746243771489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1125154609587846212005-08-27T10:56:00.000-04:002005-08-27T10:56:00.000-04:00You know, it seems to me that if the teachings aga...You know, it seems to me that if the teachings against theft were truly central to the teachings of the Church, we would see a great deal of sermons, hymnody, devotional prose and poetry on the topic, spanning the 2 millennia of Christian tradition. We don't have this "paper trail", and therefore I ask what is the motivation for asserting this? Why can't we shoplift if we want to? <BR/><BR/>We can't, of course, and no one here is arguing otherwise. But my point is that what is assumed by the early Christian community isn't going to show up in discussions and sermons over and over again, since these were not points of contention; you won't find much of a paper trail. I think you will actually find a much greater paper trail on fornication (which in times past included homosexual behavior) than you will on theft. (I did a word-search on the phrase "abusers of themselves with men" in the Early Church Fathers alone and came up with 51 references, so the paper trail does exist, even on homosexuality.)<BR/><BR/>You know, the whole shellfish thing was answered thousands of years ago. Why do you folks keep bringing that up? Jesus himself addressed that one:<BR/><BR/><I>Listen to me, all of you, and understand: there is nothing outside a person that by going in can defile, but the things that come out are what defile. . . . Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile, since it enters, not the heart but the stomach, and goes out into the sewer? It is what comes out of a person that defiles. For it is from within, from the human heart, that evil intentions come: <B>fornication,</B> theft, murder, <B>adultery,</B> avarice, wickedness, deceit, <B>licentiousness,</B> envy, slander, pride, folly. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.</I><BR/><BR/>Clearly, the Jesus of the Gospels put sexual mores on a different and higher plane than dietary laws. Also, Jesus certainly did consider fornication to be a big deal. Even our own Articles of Religion distinguish between the ceremonial law and the moral law (Article VII):<BR/><BR/><I>Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the Civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral.</I><BR/><BR/>Just by doing a simple word search on "fornication," I find fornication specifically condemned in Matthew, Mark, Luke, Romans, Acts, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, Jude, and Revelation. How many times does the Trinity show up in the New Testament? How about the Eucharist?<BR/><BR/>Regarding the failure of many to lead chaste lives, I grant that is true. But simply to disregard the teaching of Christ and the Apostles concerning chastity because it is difficult seems wrongheaded to me. I note that Episcopalians are presently failing miserably at loving each other -- as is obviously apparent in the blogs and in the news. Should we disregard this as well because we find it so difficult?<BR/><BR/>It is certainly true that many marriages are unhealthy. Wouldn't a more appropriate answer be to work to make healthy marriages rather than blessing non-marital sexual relationships that appear to be healthy?<BR/><BR/>I note that Mark notes many nonmarital sexual relationships that appear to be healthy, but I find this evaluation subjective, and wonder about the criteria that determines health in a relationship. The current results of nonmarital sexual relationships in our society -- a huge abortion rate, widespread STDs, many unwed pregnancies and the resultant impoverishment of many women -- are these to be regarded as healthy? Mark, are you so sure these young people would tell you if they found it necessary to get an abortion or if they contracted an STD? <BR/><BR/>I frequently wonder in the Episcopal Church how so many promise to "continue in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship" at the baptismal covenant with such a straight face, and then advocate such views as what are being presented here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1125154375465047972005-08-27T10:52:00.000-04:002005-08-27T10:52:00.000-04:00Jackie,I don't see any point in accusing each othe...Jackie,<BR/><BR/>I don't see any point in accusing each other of begging the question. From where I sit, the burden is firmly on you to justify exclusion. This is a symptom of how far the opposing traditions within Anglicanism (there are more than two) have diverged. Conservatives need to account for the many texts that speak of inclusion of outsiders in the biblical witness, which are far more central than the few texts that speak about sex. Truth is, the requests for unions emerged from within the Church. Most lgbtq folks have left the Church, if they ever were part of it. The fact that some stay in spite of the ways in which the Church has often treated them ought to give us pause. Why? I suspect because they love Jesus and are able to distinguish between him and the Church. I come from parts of the Church where this was pretty much a done deal. One former diocese invites clergy partners to the convention banquet and all other events where spouses are invited. (More subtle forms of inequality may continue, but the public statements are all in the direction of equality.) I now serve in part of the Church where it is very definitely not a done deal. I try to love everybody and call it as I see it. I am representing the faith of the Church as I received it from the parishes that baptized and confirmed me. I'm not making this stuff up on my own.<BR/><BR/>I don't see any necessity of drawing lines in advance. I'd personally wait to see what gets offered for our discernment by actual people. I could see us blessing a stable group of 3. I have my doubts about it. The problem with this kind of slippery slope argument is that it plays to our fear of unknown territory. Blessing a couple made up of two men or two women is a completely different issue. I would always favor looking at the concrete history of any couple, including an opposite sex couple, before invoking the Church's blessing. Whether I invoke it or not, God may well be prepared to give it. We look for evidence of the Spirit's presence and do the hard work of discernment, which always concerns the concrete case. The Incarnation points us in the direction of concrete lives rather than abstract descriptions. As Frank Griswold observed, this is about people not an issue.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1125152305794277102005-08-27T10:18:00.000-04:002005-08-27T10:18:00.000-04:00Jackie asked:- What position will you take on bles...Jackie asked:<BR/><BR/>- What position will you take on blessings of unions when you are asked to bless 3 people or 6 or 12 seeking to marry? Will they form a group union or will one person marry the other 11?What about a father and daughter who wish to marry? <BR/><BR/>Well, nobody except you seems to be raising the possibility of such things. As far as I can see, the debate amongst reasonable minds is about blessing relationships that are:<BR/><BR/>a) between two people, and only two people;<BR/>b) fall outside the prohibited degrees of biological relationship; and (although this is nowhere mentioned in scripture, so is apparently not germane, except for your raising of NAMBLA)<BR/>c) between persons of the legal age of consent.<BR/><BR/>As far as your comment on biblical interpretation--yes, we will interpret differently, largely because the first act of interpretation is selection. Just choosing to emphasize one aspect above, or to the exclusion of, others, is an act of interpretation. What is chosen will have a great impact on the subsequent interpretation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1125114148606418862005-08-26T23:42:00.000-04:002005-08-26T23:42:00.000-04:00I've commented on the issue of polyamory above. I...I've commented on the issue of polyamory above. I wouldn't support blessing any incestuous relationship. For the record, I'm against cannibalism too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1125097319415086302005-08-26T19:01:00.000-04:002005-08-26T19:01:00.000-04:00To Anonymous:You said:Many conservatives, myself e...To Anonymous:<BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/>Many conservatives, myself especially included, take the 2 Tim 3:16 seriously.<BR/><BR/>Yes, but. <BR/>The "but" being that when this was written, there was absolutely no consensus, even from a Christian community in one town to the one in the next, as to what counted as "scripture." That wasn't to be decided definitively for quite some time, with lots of controversy over what was to be considered as canonical and what was not. I think it's careless to apply this to everything that appears in the Bible as we now know it--as, at the time of the original writing, there was much in dispute. What did the author intend? That, according to Bishop Tom Wright in his recent Scripture and the Authority of God, is what is meant by a "literal" reading. For me, that would be the standard of humility and responsibility with which reflection on sacred texts should be approached.<BR/><BR/>The "truth" of poetry, etc--I am in full agreement. But again, it seems vital to me to know what the "truth" was that the author intended to convey.<BR/><BR/>No, Jackie, I don't think it's plain that the "trowel and hole" verses are simply about sanitation, and therefore can be adapted. They are about causing offense to God, just as eating pork or shellfish were not about food safety or cholesterol levels, but about causing offense to God. Somehow, though, we have decided that human convenience trumps this--although, living on the Great Lakes, I'm perfectly willing to risk this offense to God by using indoor plumbing in the winter. Brr. <BR/><BR/>But we are willing (and the early church was quite willing) to allow these offenses to God out of those who converted from other faiths than the household of Israel. So, I guess the question is why some offenses and not others have been made quite acceptable. <BR/><BR/>I wonder, too, about the intention of the prohibitions on blood and fornication to Gentile converts in the early church. We certainly don't worry much about eating blood (anyone here like their steak rare, or make gravy with their roast beef--and how, on reflection, has that separated us from God?). The blood thing is certainly on a par with the fornication--why were the two paired that way? If it had to do with the possibility of meat offered to idols (or taking part in heathen sacrifice), then that concern is long gone.<BR/><BR/>Concern about fornication would, I guess, have much to do with containment of promiscuity, which could muck up identity of who was whose child (on the part of the father, anyway--mothers tend to have been there!), and the welfare of women and children who might be left destitute on a man's whim, which is an issue of great concern in the prophetic literature. But how these are concerns in committed same-sex relations as we understand them in the early 21st century is rather beyond me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1125094469828678852005-08-26T18:14:00.000-04:002005-08-26T18:14:00.000-04:00ECUSA teaches it. Therefore both the Church and ...ECUSA teaches it. Therefore both the Church and the Communion teach it. We are a fellowship within the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church. The problem comes when we decide that the Church at any level of its organization has to have consensus about anything, except for the commitment to follow Christ. Are there things that are terribly inconsistent with the Gospel? Sure. Take warfare or capital punishment or unequal distribution of wealth. But we don't exclude those who believe in these things from Christ's fellowship do we. If I were to take a sectarian option, it would be the conservatives that I would exclude, for sure. I haven't taken that option. Their option strikes me as a sectarian option aimed at excluding precisely the people I am most comfortable with. What I have argued for is an Anglican comprehensiveness. Those who are uncomfortable with ambiguity and paradox will often take refuge in a sectarianism which is inconsistent with this comprehensiveness. It doesn't mean I didn't try to include them. What I will do is steadfastly resist the attempt of some people to exert power over others. We need to have models of authority that preserve greater freedom.<BR/><BR/>Discipleship is worked out in community. The community does not need to be empowered to enforce one conception of discipleship. People agree to disagree about things that matter all the time. Why not also about this?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1125091074063003202005-08-26T17:17:00.000-04:002005-08-26T17:17:00.000-04:00Wendy:I understood your point exactly as you meant...Wendy:<BR/><BR/>I understood your point exactly as you meant it. My point was that the Church has taught for 2000 years that sex takes place in the context of marriage and that marriage is between one man and one woman. If you want resources, you might check Origen or Augustine and even the Gregorys of the early church. Have there been deviations? Of course, sometimes the church has ignored polygamy, betrothal sex, and other forms, but until now it has always returned to that teaching. Certainly, I think much of the church would have never thought to argue and preach against homosexual sex acts because they simply were not accepted or even tolerated in the church. All the imagery, hymnodys, poetry and the like of the church speaks to the bride and the bridegroom. One might argue that the fact that the church does not write, speak, or teach "bride and bride" or "groom and groom" imagery is that evidence you are seeking. Of course, I can easily imagine some far right wingers arguing that the fall of Rome was due to the sexual immorality of the empire (straight and gay) and that God's judgment was upon Rome as it was in the days of Soddom and Gommorah, and I have no doubt that it has come up occassionally since then. But given how little we have from history, I cannot say I am overly surprised or worried about it. The church's teaching, in all its incorporations, have agreed on that position until now.<BR/><BR/>As to your assertion about verses in Scripture carrying equal weight, I will simply have to disagree. Something does not have to be literal to be be true. Poetry certainly differs from historical accounts which differ from epistles and the like. I believe that all Scripture is profitable for learning, teaching, correction, and etc. I may not understand the why, but then again, as the psalmist said today "His ways are not our ways." Certainly, God seems to take His commandments seriously. Only one man lived a righteous life in accordance with the Torah. And that one man died for all our failures, whether it was trowls or thievery or murder or some other sin. Those that believe that God is not vindictive must have an interesting perspective on the cross. Nailing an innocent to a tree for the sins of others certainly seems cruel from my perspective. Thankfully, mercifully, because Jesus accepted that role, I do not have to be nailed to the tree over and over again for my transgressions. Because we live on this side of the cross, I do not have to worry about violating the law--that's my freedom and part of the Gospel. Neither, however, do I expect the church to bless my failures or shortcomings.<BR/><BR/>I would end with the reminder that everyone, not just Christian, but every single person who has lived on the earth save Jesus, has violated at least one of God's commandments and that sin is certainly something which we should take seriously. God's demand for the cross certainly seems to back up that belief. And His promise that Christ died once, for all should leave no doubt in the minds of modern Christians that we do not have to fear the dark side of God's covenantal love--punishment. The penalty for all our sins has been paid. Do we accept His way or try to find another?<BR/><BR/>JBAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1125065592791856562005-08-26T10:13:00.000-04:002005-08-26T10:13:00.000-04:00Rahner's position is that of a theologian. A sim...Rahner's position is that of a theologian. A similar position is found in the documents of Vatican II. Dominus Iesus doesn't have quite the same level of authority as what (for Roman Catholics) is said by an ecumenical council. But I'm not a Roman Catholic and if the level of Roman Catholic teaching has gone down in the last 25 years or so, we all know which two people are most to blame.<BR/><BR/>I'm not an annihiliationist. But I do take the Catechism's teaching on exclusion from God's presence seriously. Many people do envision a vindictive God, which is a denial of the Gospel. The only people exclued from God's embrace are those who exclude themselves. If this is ultimately possible, I'll wait to see. Nothing the Church can do can endanger anyone's salvation.<BR/><BR/>I would be happy to contradict Lambeth I.10 from the pulpit or anywhere else, since this is not the teaching of the Church and cannot be proved from Holy Scripture. D039 has a much better claim, as does C051.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1125051228927569792005-08-26T06:13:00.000-04:002005-08-26T06:13:00.000-04:00obadiahslope, I've not only read the WR, but I've ...obadiahslope, I've not only read the WR, but I've been invited to make public comment on it in November. It may have intended not to focus on the sexual, but it fails badly in that regard. It is a highly questionable document, especially, as far as I'm concerned, in asserting that the Archbishop of Canterbury, in his teaching capacity, is an "instrument of unity"--especially when the report's method itself completely ignores everything that the present Archbishop has said regarding theological integrity. <BR/><BR/>Yes, I'm hard on it--it deserves rather harsh criticism, because it is a document that, if adhered to, reduces the public credibility of the church enormously.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1125029254015198922005-08-26T00:07:00.000-04:002005-08-26T00:07:00.000-04:00Wendy,no not every verse of the Bible carries the ...Wendy,<BR/>no not every verse of the Bible carries the same weight. Poetry, history, direct instructions fron God are all different. <BR/>Sometimes reading the Bible is a bit like reading Griswold, but at other times it is much clearer!<BR/>I think you are a bit hard on the WR. Have you read it? It was an attempt NOT to focus on the sexual, and many people criticised it for that reason.<BR/><BR/>Bill,<BR/>Its a bit naughty of you not to mention Dominus Iesus which appears to nuance the Rahner position somewhat. <BR/>Hell is described as darkness as well as fire so we are entitled to take these words as metaphorical. The real question is is it empty? And then there is the annihilation theory as well...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1125022720962455292005-08-25T22:18:00.000-04:002005-08-25T22:18:00.000-04:00Ananymously JB--"To use Wendy's criteria, 2000 yea...Ananymously JB--<BR/><BR/>"To use Wendy's criteria, 2000 years of church teaching support this, so give it the weight due."<BR/><BR/>Actually, you've missed what I've said, because this is entirely backwards of what I've asserted: if the current ructions on same-sex relationships were truly central to the teachings of the Church, we would see a great deal of sermons, hymnody, devotional prose and poetry on the topic, spanning the 2 millennia of Christian tradition. My point is precisely that we don't have this "paper trail", and therefore I ask what is the motivation for moving this to a central position at this time?<BR/><BR/>Everything in the scriptures does not carry equal weight. How many of us scrupulously follow Deuteronomy 23:13ff (aka the trowel and hole verses)? And yet, by violating this, the Bible clearly says that God will abandon his people. So are we all to give up our indoor plumbing so that God will not leave us? Or does this only count if we are literally camping? Are motor homes covered by this, or is there a special exemption?<BR/><BR/>If every verse of the Bible counts equally as an inspired command which we must follow for fear of losing our eternal salvation, this is a question of more serious import than that of same sex relations. After all, just about every Christian in the western world is covered by this one, and all of us are guilty--yet who among us is ready to repent?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1125020597047373172005-08-25T21:43:00.000-04:002005-08-25T21:43:00.000-04:00obadiahslope, I've now had a chance to read and re...obadiahslope, I've now had a chance to read and re-read the GC closing sermon by Frank Griswold. The Rumi quote is very weird--a total non-sequitur that is not commented on, and could have been left out entirely without damaging the content of the sermon.<BR/><BR/>It's minor, a blip on the radar, perhaps thrown in to look/sound eclectic and erudite. But because it's minor, I have definite difficulties with anyone making it into a major issue, and extrapolating that the PB intends to say that he is denying central tenets of Christian belief by using it.<BR/><BR/>Too bad, too--there's a lof of good stuff in Rumi and other Sufis, good words about the wisdom and compassion amd special place of Jesus in God's economy, about divine love and longing for union with God. Not awful stuff to admit into Christian preaching at all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1125020336307393002005-08-25T21:38:00.000-04:002005-08-25T21:38:00.000-04:00Hi all:I'll wade in a bit as I have some time to k...Hi all:<BR/><BR/>I'll wade in a bit as I have some time to kill.<BR/><BR/>I think Wendy was right, insofar as Mark questioned the place of sex in Scriptures (at least as I read his comments). Mark is simply exploring whether sex outside marriage is ok. As a conservative, so long as Mark keeps those musings to mature Christians and out of the pulpit, I can live with it. <BR/><BR/>Jackie was simply responding as if the comment were coming from the pulpit. If Mark is teaching that sex is ok outside marriage from the pulpit (or other position of clerical authority), then I think it is fair for us to be worried for those whom he may be leading astray. To use Wendy's criteria, 2000 years of church teaching support this, so give it the weight due. If Mark is just hypothesizing here among supposedly learned and mature Christians, I am not going to lose any sleep. It's not as if we have not heard the questions from our teenage boys in ministry. Jackie's pastoral sensibilities might seem to need some work, but the worry can still be there. Ultimately, all of us will have to answer for our misguidings and false teachings; hence Christ's admonition of the millstone for teachers. But that is His job and not mine.<BR/><BR/>With respect to the comments about the PB's statement, I think his "pluriform truth" speakings do very little good for the church. I get the sense that his teachings cause more confusion than anything good. That a half dozen priests and 1 layperson can get a 8 different interpretations simply illustrates that point. The historic job of bishops has been to be defenders of the Apostolic faith once delivered to the saints, not theological innovators whose words are "going where no one has gone before." Can we use non-Christian's words? I sure hope so, because I have done it. But each of will have to answer to that misuse. Were I advising the PB, I would ask him to be clear and quit muddying the waters. Of course, I am not so called, so my opinion counts for nothing.<BR/><BR/>I think Mark's questions have self-evident answers (he already listed them). Jesus tightens the noose with rspect to sex and relationships. Just thinking about another woman lustfully is now a sin. Before Him, I had to actually do it to get in trouble. But, to be fair, many of us on the conservative side of things have helped to muddy the waters by accepting divorce so readily. My suspicion is that if the church had taken a stand against divorced persons as bishops, priests or deacons, much of this would never have blown up. Yes, I know it's unfair and I understand that God's grace can be observed in second marriage. God can work through all our imperfections and despite us. I simply believe that He and the church is better served by those who serve by word and example.<BR/><BR/>And, speaking only for me, Wendy, I consider the blessing of same sex relationships a deal-breaker because the church is attempting to bless that which God has deemed a sin. Is it unfair to gays? From my perspective, it sometimes seems harsh. Of course, I am old fahioned and would never consent to blessing adulterous affairs, stealing, hubris, gluttony and whatever else you want to toss out there that tempts me. Can I deal with my brothers and sisters who are tempted by that. Absolutely, as I assume they can deal with me and my sins. Do I want them to bless my sins? No, that too would be a terrible thing. Is it possible that the church is wrong? of course. I have yet to read or hear any convincing arguments in favor of such blessings, but I am always willing to read and to listen. But I do think that the social justice arguments have reminded many of us in the church that we need to quit treating homosexual sinners any differently from any other sinners.<BR/><BR/>But this issue is only a deal breaker as a presenting issue. I think the real problem is a hermeneutical problem. Many conservatives, myself especially included, take the 2 Tim 3:16 seriously. Often, as evidenced by Bill's post above, there seems to be an idea that we can know more than what God revealed. And I am not picking on Bill. If less mature or uneducated Christians heard his statement about no burning, it would be equated with "Father Bill from wherever does not believe in Hell." Clearly he does, as his post about being excluded from the company of God illustrates, but the words too often get misconstrued. And Bill can point to Christ's prediction of the feast (weeping and gnashing of teeth) or the return of the bridgroom as examples and calm most. My question to him would be the weeds and the tares, the stinky fish and good fish and other parts of Scripture which seem to strongly point to torture and anguish and specifically fire. And we could have a fun and spirited debate whose winner would not be known until the second-coming. But I think it all boils down to differing views of who God is and His love. I think many in the church on the extreme left argue in favor of God's unconditional love, while many on the extreme right prefer to argue that God's love is not unconditional but covenantal. This leads to differing opinions like the one's on Mark's blog in which people talk past one another. The covenant has always included punishment for failure (see the exile, God's judgments on Israel in the wilderness, Saul, and finally the cross), but we all know that Christ died once for all. Those arguing for unconditional love seem to be arguing that there is no consequence for bad choices (ie sinful acts), and at their worst, deny even original sin. Again, it is just my reflection and the gross stereotypes are not meant to imply that anyone here exemplifies them. I do think that the different understandings of love would make an interesting study (ie Is hesed really agape?), but, as our host would say, that is a subject for another essay ;)<BR/><BR/>My final rejoinder, and then I'll retire for the evening, would be to carefully consider what is written here. Thanks to the internet and sinful nature, we can speak in settings like this before we think. I'm sure everyone chooses their words carefully before preaching on the weekends (no slight intended to you Wendy), and we would all do well to do it here as well. We never know who may be reading nor what they think of our witness. If we appear no different than the world, then we do the Gospel and God a disservice. But polite and considered debate may be the seed for some kibitzer.<BR/><BR/>JBAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1124981397483075652005-08-25T10:49:00.000-04:002005-08-25T10:49:00.000-04:00I believe in the possibility of universal salvatio...I believe in the possibility of universal salvation, in and through Christ, perhaps even its likelihood. I believe that because of the necessity of a free human response to grace, that some people may definitively exclude themselves from God's love. Not that God refuses to seek them out, perhaps even beyond the grave. This is standard Vatican II teaching, found in Karl Rahner. Not even Benedict will be able to take it completely. What I do believe is that God's salvation is a gift and none of us is owed it. "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." When salvation happens it is because of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This kind of universalism is different from the easy universalism of those who say "there are many roads to God." There is one road, Jesus Christ, which may become available to those who do not join the visible Church in their lifetime. I do believe that there are positive contributions that non-Christian religions make. There is no reason to view them as 100% error or as demonic. Buddhists can teach us to be better Christians and I suspect we can teach them to be better Buddhists, when we are faithful to our own tradition. I am more than willing to share Jesus with everybody, to testify to what he has done in my life. I believe that people are hungry for the Good News. At the same time, I do so out of gratitude for the gift of salvation, rather than anxiety about their immortal soul. I believe that not everyone may be called to Christ's fellowship during this lifetime. Jesus seemed to believe that those who weren't against us are for us. I think that the 1979 Book of Common Prayer supports this teaching. I am prepared to defend it from Holy Scripture.<BR/><BR/>If there is eternal punishment, it is as the Catechism teaches, exclusion from God's presence rather than sadistic torture and fire. I don't believe in that kind of God. Some of the ugliest aspects of this debate are driven by belief in that kind of God, who has nothing to do with the God we meet in the Gospel. I believe in accountability without "turn or burn." The outer darkness is much more like what the Catechism describes. There may be pain there, but only the pain of people's hate and selfishness that keeps them from accepting God's boundless mercy and love.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1124966106790150282005-08-25T06:35:00.000-04:002005-08-25T06:35:00.000-04:00J.C. Fisher asked obadiahslope:"Is it because he (...J.C. Fisher asked obadiahslope:<BR/>"Is it because he (favorably) quotes a non-Christian, Rumi, that your suspicion becomes so inflamed? Again and again in the Biblical witness (OT and NT) the "People of God" were shocked, shocked! to see the Holy One working through (and for) those outside the boundaries. Why should that be any different today?"<BR/><BR/>If it is out of bounds for a Christian preacher to favorably quote non-christians, or sources not explicitly christian, or to hope to see non-christians in heaven, then I join that group of gloriously guilty. When I was an active lay preacher, I quoted not only Rumi (wonderful stuff!) and the Koran, but Dr. Seuss and Miss Manners as well. And I most certainly hope that, if heaven is where I finally find myself, that I will see Gandhi and my dear departed Jewish mother.<BR/><BR/>obadiahslope, I hope you will manage to treat Griswold generously--especially if you don't quite understand what he's getting at. Neither do I; half the time I don't think he's much of a preacher, but a good person who genuinely loves his Lord. <BR/><BR/>I question whether he really had very much of a platform to proclaim the gospel at the end of GC. If we are honest, who outside ECUSA really gives a wad of wet tissue what is or is not said at GC? Of course a great fuss was made at the last one, over the Gene Robinson consecration. That overshadowed everything, again because of the over-emphasis on the sexual to the exclusion of all else. Same with the recent ACC meeting: who heard the really good stuff Rowan Williams said during it (or the very good lecture he gave on the media just before it)? Probably nobody cares, because we were too busy peeking into peoples' bedrooms. <BR/><BR/>This is where Windsor is a piece of junk--it focuses our attention so hard on the sexual, gives blabby lip-service to the church's 'mission' (without giving more than a feel-good nebulous definition of it), and ignores that all the trash-talk going on around the sexuality debate completely undermines any credibility the church has in the wider world. Who would choose to be a part of this mess if they already were not?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1124962585784330672005-08-25T05:36:00.000-04:002005-08-25T05:36:00.000-04:00JCF,Well if I have a hermeutic of suspicion, its o...JCF,<BR/>Well if I have a hermeutic of suspicion, its only fair. It's time you progressives shared the old h of s with evangelicals. But actually my view of Bishop Griswold's word isn't quite that grand; it's just that I don't understand him. <BR/>I think you put your finger on a key question when you raise "universal salvation" by which I guess you differ from the Synod of Dort. They said sufficient for all, efficient for the elect...but if I read you and Bill right you believe all are saved, or have I got you wrong. Anyhow that's a question that goes to the heart of things, and as Wendy said many posts ago the other issues such as marriage are relatively marginal. She was certainly right about that.<BR/>And I am glad you are a fellow traveller with puddleglum. That is important too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com