 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
S.B.G.
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 143
| Posted 5/19/2003 6:05 AM (GMT -6) |   | The Rev. Mary Albing was ordained at Christ the Redeemer Lutheran church in southwest Minneapolis yesterday.
This decision was contrary to a requirement by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) that unmarried clergy -- gay or straight -- be celibate. Albing, 48, is a lesbian in a noncelibate relationship.
Any comments?
S.B.G.
To understand and to be understood is bliss. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 5/19/2003 6:35 AM (GMT -6) | | SBG
quote:
The Rev. Mary Albing was ordained at Christ the Redeemer Lutheran church in southwest Minneapolis yesterday.
This decision was contrary to a requirement by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) that unmarried clergy -- gay or straight -- be celibate. Albing, 48, is a lesbian in a noncelibate relationship.
Any comments?
Yes. Why does it rain on the day I reserved a stump-grinder?
Even though the skies are blue, don't they let the sunshine through? | | Back to Top | | |
|
S.B.G.
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 143
| Posted 5/19/2003 6:37 AM (GMT -6) | | Guess it's just the luck of the draw my friend. 
Is this your way of saying it doesn't impact you one way or another?
S.B.G.
To understand and to be understood is bliss. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 5/19/2003 6:57 AM (GMT -6) | | SBG
quote:
Is this your way of saying it doesn't impact you one way or another?
I read the article online, I think it's the same lady pastor who caused a ruckous last year. It doesn't impact me as I am no longer a Lutheran. The two larger Lutheran denominations merged partly due to declining numbers and I see no abatement in the shrinking of that particular denomination. Do you think it will affect the Metropolitan Community Churches? i.e. now that mainline denominations are 'opening' up, MCC are not as relevant anymore?
Even though the skies are blue, don't they let the sunshine through?
Edited by - Laika on 05/19/2003 11:58:07 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
S.B.G.
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 143
| Posted 5/19/2003 7:33 AM (GMT -6) | |
I tend to think in terms of Christianity, rather than denominationalism. I think any time a Christian church makes a dramatic or controversial decision, it has the potential to open doors for other Christian churches.
I'm wondering how people on this forum, particularly those accepting Christians living a gay lifestyle react. Are there lines we do not cross? If we tell someone we love and accept them as they are, if we attribute their behavior to something out of their control, do we then say they cannot lead?
I'm still trying to sort how I feel about it.
S.B.G.
To understand and to be understood is bliss. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 5/19/2003 7:56 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I'm still trying to sort how I feel about it.
I think you can trust God to bring good out of it.
How's that for being non-commital?
Even though the skies are blue, don't they let the sunshine through? | | Back to Top | | |
|
S.B.G.
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 143
| Posted 5/19/2003 8:21 AM (GMT -6) | | Laika,
The more I talk to you, the more I like you.
That is an excellent attitude to take!
S.B.G.
To understand and to be understood is bliss. | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 5/19/2003 9:17 AM (GMT -6) | | We all will have to stand before God for what we do...though I do find it interesting that the ELCA is declining while the Conservative Missouri Synod wing of the Luthern Church has been steadily growing.
This is also from a church that doesn't believe the Bible to be the fully inspired word of God...
Edited by - honorman on 05/19/2003 2:18:13 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/19/2003 10:54 AM (GMT -6) | | I think denominations do matter, since they provide for variation in how we answer the problem of ecclesiastical order. Hence, we can compare across them and learn, hopefully...
I think the ELCA's policy is a good one. Perhaps, one can allow for repentance and redemption, but overall sounds like a good policy. Especially, since it applies for both heterosexuals and homosexuals..
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 5/19/2003 10:56 AM (GMT -6) | | DLW - What is their policy? Do they allow heterosexuals who are not married but are in domestic relationships to be ministers?
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
--Søren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
LDR
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 7
| Posted 5/19/2003 12:10 PM (GMT -6) | | Some years ago I served as pastor in a denomination. When things happened in other denominations that I deemed inappropriate or worse, say scandalous, I simply wrote it off with, "That's to be expected from THAT denomination." All denominations but mine were 'misguided' so their mistakes and follies were no surprise to me.
But now I see brothers and sisters everywhere and no denominations are in sight! So, this question re: ordaining non-celibate gays is very personal: What are my brothers and sisters understanding about the will and ways of God that I cannot account for yet?
At this website I hear a fairly consistent conclusion that homosexuality is sin--no more and no less sinful than any other departure from God's loving will. So if we accept that premise for the moment, what prerogative do we, the body of Christ, have to knowingly perpetuate a practiced sin by ordaining those who practice it? Would be endorse on a life-long basis any other sin? Any in the list provided late in Romans 1?
LDR
| | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/19/2003 1:17 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
DLW - What is their policy? Do they allow heterosexuals who are not married but are in domestic relationships to be ministers?
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
--Søren Kierkegaard
"It was contrary a requirement by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) that unmarried clergy -- gay or straight -- be celibate."
No one here is condoning this decision. Can homosexuals be married in MN? She is a constitutional homosexual? I think with many lesbians(more say than male homosexuals), it is more likely to be a matter of choice...
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Christian
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 78
| Posted 5/19/2003 4:09 PM (GMT -6) | | DLW, you sound like you are both condoning and supporting the ELCA's decision. My apologies, but I do not understand the rest of your comments and what point you were trying to get across.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 5/19/2003 5:53 PM (GMT -6) | | DLW: I too, do not understand what you are saying. In none of the 50 states is homosexual marriage legal yet. In Vermont, homosexual domestic partnerships can be registered and given many rights of heterosexual marriages, but even there, they cannot legally be "married."
So given the fact that this Minister in MN cannot legally be married - my question is, she is not celibate, right? She has a partner. So by the same token, does this church also condone heterosexual domestic partnerships? (non marriage relationships)
I realize that the official ELCA position condemns this practice, but it seems that the practice is occurring regardless. So I was just curious whether the hetero-domestic partnership- issue is even an issue for ELCA ministers.
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
--Søren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
S.B.G.
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 143
| Posted 5/20/2003 4:57 AM (GMT -6) | | The article I pulled this from states that it is the ELCA's position that heterosexual non married pastors must be celibate.
What are we saying here? Is it the fate of homosexual Christians that they must live a celibate life? That they must deny who they are or live alone? And likewise, they cannot work in the realm of their giftedness unless they admit they are wrong and change?
What do you say to the person who insists they have always been this way? How can we know, it is not our experience, how can we pretend to understand?
How is this different from letting remarried people be pastors? Aren't both situations merciful in not mandating that someone be celibate and live alone?
I'm not proclaiming any answers, just posing questions for the moment.
S.B.G.
To understand and to be understood is bliss. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 5/20/2003 5:44 AM (GMT -6) | | This weekend I saw a man preparing to be ordained to the position of "Reader." He was doing vigil in the Church, readin and praying. When the Bishop walked past him with the priest of the church the Bishop made the off-hand remark that "you are in what we call 'the dessert' now." The preparation, the casting off of sin, the long preparation for years in his Christian life before hand, all necessary for the Holy Calling of reading the Epistles to the church AS the very missage of Christ himself.
PRIEST: Let us attend!
(The Reader recites the Prokeimenon of the Epistle)
PRIEST: Wisdom!
(The Reader announces the title of the Epistle)
PRIEST: Let us attend!
(The Reader sings the Epistle for the day. When he has finished the Priest says to the Reader:)
PRIEST: Peace be to thee that readest.
CHOIR: Alleluia, alleluia, alleluia.
In the early days of the Church the whole calling of the reader was to prepare himself, through study and prayer (and fastin) to faithfully read the Epistles (not the four Gospels) to the Body. Like an artist needing to know the feel and meaning of each line she draws the reader needed to know God's heart and message.
Such preparation.
Then, during ordination hair is clipped from the four courners of the reader's head.
The tonsure, which is the cutting of hair from the head in the sign of the cross, is the sign that the person completely offers himself to God -- hair being the symbol of strength (Jud 16:17). Thus, until the fifteenth century the clergy of the Orthodox Church -- the "professional Christians," so to speak -- wore the tonsure all their lives to show that their strength was in God.
"Their strength was in God."
"The person completely offers himself to God "
---------------------------------
By contrast, what a shame and a SHAM this sad news from southwest Minneapolis displays. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/20/2003 5:53 AM (GMT -6) | | I'm sorry for not being clear regarding my views...
I guess I first wrote my initial response. That a non-married sexually-active homosexual would be barred from ministry, just as would be the case for a heterosexual. Then, I was raising for myself what sorts of facts would I want to know to get a better handle for myself on the case. Clearly, because homosexual marriages are illegal, she couldn't be married. However, if her relationship was stable and monogamous then I could see a Church overlooking the fact she wasn't married. I then also raised the question of whether she was a constitutional homosexual, since I think that matters because, otherwise, if people do have choices, I would want to take the stand that any homosexual acts would be wrong.
So my position was unclear, because I think the facts were unclear. They still are regarding this particular case. I have friends that are gay-rights activists and bisexual and I do not wish to condone their life-style choices.
If you follow the LBGT positions, they really do take the position that since "gender" is socially inculcated that it is a form of control and all the past controls are wrong and oppressive.
For me, I focus on the facts regarding the constitutional role of endocrinology during the fetal stage in the determination of later sexuality. I emphasize continuity with Christian tradition regarding the intrinsic wrongness of homosexual acts. However, I don't think permitting homosexual marriages, so long as they were geared to promote long-term relationships, would be a bad idea, politically-speaking. Since, (1) the degrading views of human sexuality in our country stem mostly from heterosexual sources in the media (2) Gay-rights activists are propagating very un-christian viewpoints in their political crusade to change this law(so it would be good to cut off their political oxygen). (3) The fact that there are constitutional homosexuals(typically, 2% of males, .5% of females) for whom celibacy may be difficult(It may not be one of their spiritual gifts). (4) Just because something is legal, doesn't mean that it is moral(We should not conflate or seek absolute uniformity between the moral codes we hold each other to within the Church and what is law in the State. Attempting to do the latter makes it too easy for those who control the State(or are trying to do so) to gain too much influence over the Church.).
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 5/20/2003 6:39 AM (GMT -6) | | DLW did a pretty good job of organizing the details of his thoughts and considerations here. I hope that they are clear to those who wanted him to do so. I bet so.
I'd like to attach one observation to something that he said. I'll do so because in his post is something that is typically considered by the "pro" side, and is answered by the "con" side quite substantially and forcefully (yet with sympathy).
But first this...
quote:
DLW
since I think that matters because, otherwise, if people do have choices, I would want to take the stand that any homosexual acts would be wrong.
Here DLW is simply confused. OF COURSE every person, of any "orientation" has choice. DLW will, I'm certain, as even Icon has, agree with that. (How many times did Icon agree?)
Now, on to the well trampled rhetoric...
quote:
CRC "Pastoral Care for
Homosexual Members"
The question of what to do about one’s sexuality when marriage is not an option is no mere question of theological theory. It is, rather, a sometimes desperate question of a Christian who is homosexual, struggling to be obedient to her or his Lord. It is also an urgent pastoral concern (see Report 42, Acts of Synod 1973, pp. 628-31, where both the pastoral dimensions and the ethical issues are explored in detail). If a person lacks self-control but marriage is not possible, is sin then the only option?
What is this gift, or charisma, of which Paul speaks in 1 Corinthians 7:7? It is commonly called the gift of celibacy. Scripture, however, nowhere speaks specifically of celibacy. Rather, in the immediate context (1 Cor. 7:5) Paul calls this ability to deny oneself sexual relationships “self-control,” saying some people have it and others lack it.
Galatians 5:22-23 speaks of self-control as one of the fruits of the Spirit: “By contrast, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against such things.” Self-control is listed along with such virtues as love, joy, peace, and gentleness among the things that are produced by the Holy Spirit in those who belong to Christ. A“fruit of the Spirit” is not the same as a “gift of the Spirit,” but some of these Christian virtues are also described as gifts, or charisma, of the Spirit. For example, in 1 Corinthians 12 and 13 Paul speaks of spiritual gifts, including the gifts of faith, hope, and love. Both love and faith are fruits of the Spirit and gifts of the Spirit, so it is not strange for Paul to speak of a gift (self-control) that is also a fruit of the Spirit.
At the conclusion of his teaching on gifts, Paul instructs us to “strive for the spiritual gifts” (1 Cor. 14:1). We may seek them and pray for them. Gifts are not some power or special ability that God either gives or does not give to us without possibility of change. In many places in the New Testament the Holy Spirit promises to give Christians whatever they need in order to obey and serve God. Christians who lack self-control of their anger or their sexuality must seek it and ask God for it. Married people as well as singles need selfcontrol, including self-control of their sexuality, for a well-disciplined life.
Finally, Scripture is clear that even though virtues such as love and faith are both fruits of the spirit and gifts of the Spirit, they are also commanded of us. We are called to love and to believe and are held responsible when we do not. The fact that both are gifts of the Spirit does not relieve us of responsibility. No one may argue that he is relieved from the obligation to love or to believe because he does not have that gift of the Spirit.
So, too, with self-control. It is a gift of the Spirit, one of the fruits of the Spirit, and a command to be obeyed. Scripture speaks of it in Titus 2:11-15: “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all, training us to renounce impiety and worldly passions, and in the present age to live lives that are self-controlled, upright, and godly. . . . Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority”; in 1 Peter 1:13: “Therefore prepare your minds for action; discipline yourselves; set all your hope on the grace that Jesus Christ will bring you when he is revealed”; and in 2 Peter 1:5-6: “For this very reason, you must make every effort to support your faith with goodness, and goodness with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with endurance . . . .”
The argument that one is excused from the obligation to be sexually chaste if one does not have the gift of celibacy (or self-control) rests on questionable grounds.
How then do we learn self-control?
1. We must seek it, desire it, and pray for it, alone and with others.
2. We must believe that God gives us what we ask in Jesus’ name.
3. We must know our own weakness, know that we are fully capable of falling into sin. We must “beware when we think we stand, lest we also fall.” We must let this knowledge of weakness and vulnerability lead us to trust in God’s power.
4. We must practice self-control. Learning self-control in other aspects of our lives is a virtue that shapes our character and enables us to say no. Or, to put it differently, self-indulgence is the enemy of self-control.
5. We must learn to flee temptations like pornography, which is not only dangerous but addictive.
6. We must be accountable to fellow Christians. For example, a person striving to learn self-control should find a partner or small group with whom to meet regularly for support, prayer, and monitoring each other’s behavior.
7. We must learn to live one day at a time, for “tomorrow will bring worries of its own” (Matt. 6:34).
8. We must speak about our temptations. Hiding them and keeping secrets gives them a power that can be broken only by allowing others to bear our burdens with us.
So..., When DLW refers to the possible "lack of a gift of celebacy by part of the 1.25 percent of the population (2%+.5% divided by 2), THAT is wrong.
While DLW is admirably careful to not excuse or encourage sin that he considers unnecessary....
YET, the rhetoric he has been around has left him confused. The universiality of the command to bear fruit (or to be cast into the fire) applies without exception.
.
An Icon of John the Baptist that I saw this weekend has him holding a scroll that reads:
"Repent For
The Kingdom
Of Heaven Is
At Hand. Bear
Fruit That Is
Worthy Of
Repentance.
Every Tree
That Does
Not Bear Good
Fruit Is
Cut Down."
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 05/20/2003 11:58:56 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/20/2003 7:41 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
DLW did a pretty good job of organizing the details of his thoughts and considerations here. I hope that they are clear to those who wanted him to do so. I bet so.
I'd like to attach one observation to something that he said. I'll do so because in his post is something that is typically considered by the "pro" side, and is answered by the "con" side quite substantially and forcefully (yet with sympathy).
But first this...
quote:
DLW
since I think that matters because, otherwise, if people do have choices, I would want to take the stand that any homosexual acts would be wrong.
Here DLW is simply confused. OF COURSE every person, of any "orientation" has choice. DLW will, I'm certain, as even Icon has, agree with that. (How many times did Icon agree?)
We agree we have choices about how we live our sexualities and there are wrong-choices. Here, I use choice in a different context when speaking of bisexuals.
quote:
So..., When DLW refers to the possible "lack of a gift of celebacy by part of the 1.25 percent of the population (2%+.5% divided by 2), THAT is wrong.
How do you know that these unfortunate group of individuals have the gift of celibacy? You are saying they should strive for this gift? Doesn't one practice celibacy through one's faithfulness? Has God ordained these individuals to not marry for their entire lives? Why, because their hormones went the wrong direction when they were in the womb? What if it was identified that a male fetus had not switched over hormonally and they were able to correct it and he developed as a heterosexual? We should all praise God for giving us the insight into understanding the formation of human sexuality so as to prevent this individual from becoming a constitutional homosexual. But, would God then rescind the gift of celibacy.
I agree that God will never let us be tempted with something that we are not equipped to handle. The thing we disagree on is what is the most loving thing for a constitutional homosexual?
quote:
While DLW is admirably careful to not excuse or encourage sin that he considers unnecessary....
YET, the rhetoric he has been around has left him confused. The universiality of the command to bear fruit (or to be cast into the fire) applies without exception.
Yet, the specificity of what bearing fruit in this context is conveniently obfuscated by you, or it is insinuated that bearing fruit for a constitutional homosexual is developing the self-control to stay celibate for their entire life.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 5/20/2003 8:54 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
DLW
How do you know that these unfortunate group of individuals have the gift of celibacy?
The committee appointed by Synod for the report in that article we "UP" on the considerations being promoted by all sides in this debate. In my post above I evaluated you by saying: the rhetoric he has been around has left him confused. I see I was right. The "rhetoric" I refered to in that post is evident in the progress of the article where they pause to consider what happend when you take just one of Paul's passages (1 Corinthians 7:7--see above). But it goes on, and quote Paul and others to describe a larger context: one where "celebacy" does not exhaust the idea of gift, a context where "gift" is part of the "fruit" of the Spirit. A "gift" that is given-to-all and the calling-of-all.
This has been the point made by at least five other people on this very thread, to may others who promoted homosexual activities. The point is that the SPIRIT is in the buisiness of helping. Maybe not "changing" in a way that sells books. But the Spirit ministers all that is needful. And, more than that, works towards and eternal goal and not just a "good life." SPIRITUALITY, rather than mere ethics is the realm of the Christian life.
quote:
Galatians 5:22-23 speaks of self-control as one of the fruits of the Spirit: “By contrast, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against such things.” Self-control is listed along with such virtues as love, joy, peace, and gentleness among the things that are produced by the Holy Spirit in those who belong to Christ. A“fruit of the Spirit” is not the same as a “gift of the Spirit,” but some of these Christian virtues are also described as gifts, or charisma, of the Spirit. For example, in 1 Corinthians 12 and 13 Paul speaks of spiritual gifts, including the gifts of faith, hope, and love. Both love and faith are fruits of the Spirit and gifts of the Spirit, so it is not strange for Paul to speak of a gift (self-control) that is also a fruit of the Spirit.
At the conclusion of his teaching on gifts, Paul instructs us to “strive for the spiritual gifts” (1 Cor. 14:1). We may seek them and pray for them. Gifts are not some power or special ability that God either gives or does not give to us without possibility of change. In many places in the New Testament the Holy Spirit promises to give Christians whatever they need in order to obey and serve God. Christians who lack self-control of their anger or their sexuality must seek it and ask God for it. Married people as well as singles need selfcontrol, including self-control of their sexuality, for a well-disciplined life.
DLW: You are saying they should strive for this gift (celebacy)?
PoW: I am agreeing with the committee appointed by Synod to study the matter, that ALL should know that the Fruit of the Spirit which is Self-control is not an individual gift given to be shared by some with others (as is preaching) but is, as the article shows, as universal as love in being required/given to all, in the measure that they allow the Spirit.
DLW: Has God ordained these individuals to not marry for their entire lives?
PoW: Marriage is ONLY between a man and a woman. If you don't know that you are extremely ignorant of what God has instituted. I posted quite a lot on marriage, its Biblical view, on this thread already. Doc and Icon took a "low" view of marriage; and Icon seemed to doubt the existence of sacraments at all--except as can be defined later as having been useful in a utilitarian way.
Can they marry. Sure. Why not. Marriage is only partially about sex. And gender is only partially about sex to. (Inspite of what I think I remember you saying about gender being a bad thing.) The male-female bond, along with its architypical growing together of the woman embracing all and the man making himself less that the other might be more (iconed by Mary and John the Baptist) do involve all of ourselves; but certainly not only sex.
I know a married couple were he has enduring homosexual 'issues' that he deals with within the community. He is a grandfather now. He's been a CRC Elder.
DLW: What if it was identified that a male fetus had not switched over hormonally and they were able to correct it and he developed as a heterosexual? We should all praise God for giving us the insight into understanding the formation of human sexuality so as to prevent this individual from becoming a constitutional homosexual.
PoW: This is truly Sophmorish!
DLW: I agree that God will never let us be tempted with something that we are not equipped to handle. The thing we disagree on is what is the most loving thing for a constitutional homosexual?
PoW: Then ASK GOD. Don't make something up! What is needed is God's best. What is NOT needed is YOUR best.
DLW: Yet, the specificity of what bearing fruit in this context is conveniently obfuscated by you, or it is insinuated that bearing fruit for a constitutional homosexual is developing the self-control to stay celibate for their entire life.
PoW: NO ONE LIVES THEIR ENTIRE LIFE ALL AT ONCE.
You talk as if this were being evaluated by a 'bottom line' of the least...(something). Bearing fruit is NOT acting in a way that Pietism defines as being a good facsimile of what God would do. the Fruit is not a product of our origin. The FRUIT is the actual working of God's Spirit by His Divine Uncreated Energies (the same that created the whole universe) in us, CHANGING US INTO CONFORMITY WITH HIS SON BY THE WILL OF THE FATHER. (Its a Trinitarian project--as are all things!)
THAT is what such things as you propose are standing in the way of.
So...
Do I "insinuated that bearing fruit for a constitutional homosexual is developing the self-control to stay celibate for their entire life."
ABSOLUTELY NOT!
Nothing of our own origin. We are like grass!
But the Lord can do it. What is promised is that the newcreation, the New Jerusalem begins with the coming of the Spirit. (Eschatology is not just a Tim LaHaye/"Left Behind" thing. The answer to the question of when will the Millenium come is two-fold: Pentacost, and as soon as you (whoever) will let it.
DLW: Yet, the specificity of what bearing fruit in this context is conveniently obfuscated by you....
PoW: The bearing of fruit, as I said above, is BY the economy of God as a direct and personal work of the Spirit transforming the individual Christian.
It may well be that one sin or another persists, maybe even most of a life. But you HAVE to see the big picture, DLW. YOU HAVE TO. The focus is on the Spirit and the Tranformation. What if that one sin drives the Christian prayer warrier to heights of intersession, of compassion, etc.
What you've proposed gets in the way of that. And without your having God's permission to do wo.
You are an academic. What you have done here is a bit more than you should. Discussing, thinking, analizing, assembling, comparing... THESE THINGS CAN AND MUST BE DONE. But whereever authorizing, or encouraging, promoting, faciliatating, etc. are done, we do it as it were before the throne of God. Our intensions will not save us. Our ferver will not justify us. ONLY by being in union with the ONE who died for sins is there any authority. And only as the Spirit is in the Church do we have any fiat from Him.
The Spirit was sent by the Son thus instituting the Church. The Church does not exist without the Spirit.
And the "OTHER Church" is also vitally important. That is the human body and soul. (The Bishop preached on that Sunday.) The edifice is Holy, and it is an eternal edifice that is being construced. Living Icons such as Enoch, who walked with God and were taken up are living sermons showing the REAL purpose of the human soul and body.
Be about your Father's work.
Don't be like Cain, and make up your own sacrifice. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Christian
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 78
| Posted 5/20/2003 2:41 PM (GMT -6) | | SBG,
The difference between a celibate heterosexual and a practicing homosexual is the issue of sex and sexual immorality. Do you believe that homosexual sexual activity falls into the category of sexual immorality? Your beliefs on this are the crux to the forming of your opinions on homosexuality.
A homosexual couple, as ReasonableDoubt pointed out, is not aknowledged by any state to be a legal marital union. Thus being, any sexual relations would be considered to be outside marriage. How you define sexual immorality and how you define marriage would influence your view of homosexual relations being just or being sin.
Certain churches ordain remarried persons as pastors (may it be noted that not all churches do) because first, the belief that their sin is forgiven and second, any sex takes place within a marriage (albeit a second marriage).
To be celibate and live alone is certainly not a curse. In fact, Paul gives many strong arguments for remaining single. We do a disservice to those who are single (whether heterosexual or homosexual) when we treat singleness as an undesireable and unfavorable lifestyle.
Good questions.
Edited by - Christian on 05/20/2003 7:46:10 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 5/20/2003 5:01 PM (GMT -6) | | I think DLW makes some good points - I have often thought about hermaphrodites. What are they supposed to do? SO a doctor decides to make them one sex or another, what if the doctor was wrong?
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
--Søren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 5/21/2003 4:29 AM (GMT -6) | | Christian
A homosexual couple, as ReasonableDoubt pointed out, is not aknowledged by any state to be a legal marital union. Thus being, any sexual relations would be considered to be outside marriage.
Iconoclast
God instituted four mandates for human activity: Marriage, Church, Labor and Government. Neither the Government nor the Church has the "right" to "sanction" marriage. Marriage pre-dates both.
The way two people get "married" is by both choosing to get married and then consummating the marriage. Notice that the bible presupposes that two people who have sex are "joined together" as one flesh - they ARE married. And WHO joins them together? God joins them together, NOT the church or the government. "What God has joined together, let no man put asunder."
Thus, it is meaningless to say that someone isn't married BECAUSE the government doesn't ALLOW them to get married. Exactly the same with the church. If two people want to get "married" they simply choose to get married and consummate their marriage. Personally I prefer a nice ritual of first holding hands and jumping over a stick just to really let the world know that you are serious about your decision.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Edited by - Iconoclast on 05/21/2003 09:37:04 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 5/21/2003 4:35 AM (GMT -6) | | POW to DLW
Marriage is ONLY between a man and a woman. If you don't know that you are extremely ignorant of what God has instituted.
…
This is truly Sophmorish!
…
Then ASK GOD. Don't make something up! What is needed is God's best. What is NOT needed is YOUR best.
…
You are an academic. What you have done here is a bit more than you should.
Iconoclast
POW, I apologize in advance for the following unsolicited advice but you might want to consider using fewer “you are” statements. They tend to come across as attacking the person rather than the particular idea that they are espousing.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
might-be-don
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830
| Posted 5/21/2003 4:57 AM (GMT -6) | | Iconoclast says:quote:
Personally I prefer a nice ritual of first holding hands and jumping over a stick just to really let the world know that you are serious about your decision.
Hey! Everybody knows that they should actually pass UNDER the stick.
peace and love, don
---
"No Rules, just Right" Outback Steakhouse | | Back to Top | | |
| 65 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:49 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|