 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > homosexuality in your face | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
trosie
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550
| Posted 4/2/2002 10:44 PM (GMT -6) |   | Iconoclast:quote:
My only question is, “what ACTION do we as the body of Christ take regarding a monogamous homosexual couple?”
The action we as the body of Christ take is the same regardless of the sin -- we love the person right where they are at (just as God does) Loving a person where they are at DOES NOT mean we accept their sin. It means the contrary. God doesn't just keep us where we are. Oh my gosh, I have had times where I know that God has worked in me during a trial in such a way that I grow and MOVE AWAY from a particular destructive area in my life. God loves me enough to prune me in order to that I might MOVE TOWARD seeing and doing the things that are good and pleasing to Him.
The action to take with a monogomous homosexual couple is to love them.
trosie
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
trosie
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550
| Posted 4/2/2002 11:05 PM (GMT -6) | | Iconoclast:quote:
Today, we know many people who were abused by the Church’s prior position on divorce and remarriage. Today, we judge that the Church was wrong to take this position. What will the majority of people in the Church say about our current position regarding homosexual couples 50 years from now? Is it possible that they will judge us for this position?
Oh, I forgot this second part. I think it's sad to treat ANY person in such a way as to make them feel devalued. I know first hand how society (not just the church) has treated those in divorced families. Because I grew up in a divorced family I somehow was given the message from society and the church that divorce was a "disease" in which us children were more susceptible of. I received the message that I was defective because my family didn't look "perfect." Yes, indeed, I know that divorced people have been abused!
I can appreciate how this same attitude is expressed to the homosexual today -- I won't deny that this is true. I think it's SAD! I don't think that ANYONE should be treated in an abusive manner especially within the church. We are to love people RIGHT WHERE THEY ARE AT!
I don't think it's the loving thing to do to point at the sin of our brother or sister. I have had friends who smoke and have been severely judged for their smoking. This judgment they've felt has left them feeling devalued and sometimes has made them feel less worthy of God's love because of their smoking. (Side note: I DON'T think smoking is a sin.)
I can appreciate that this same attitude of judging can be a turn off to the homosexual. No, it's more than a turnoff, it can be a method of making the homosexual person feel unworthy to come to the altar. I believe this is why Jesus STRESSED Love, NOT judge, your neighbor
Loving a person where they are at is not the same as accepting the action. These two things seem to need to be separated.
I actually had backed out from this conversation a week ago because I came to understand that what God wants us to do and to be about is loving people with His love. I only came back on because to me it seemed like this was an issue that could go around and around in a circle SO what is the point? I don't ask that sarcastically but seriously.
That's my thoughts,
trosie
Edited by - trosie on 04/03/2002 04:14:00 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/3/2002 1:41 AM (GMT -6) | | Trosie, thank you for that treatment of the matter. Nice Job.
Icon. Sorry, I'm not going to try and reduce such a thing down. I think that the portion from Evdokimov will have to stand on its own.
I'd like to respond briefly to a few things:
Friend Trosie, thank you for that treatment of the matter. Nice Job.
Friend Icon, Sorry, I'm not going to try and reduce such a thing down. It is something that I absorb slowly myself. I think that the portion from Evdokimov will have to stand on its own.
I'd like to respond to a few things:
Icon: What if two people are married, one of which was divorced . . . What action do we take?
b]PoW: Icon, you mentioned the issue of "what to do with" those who are divorced and remarried. THIS matter concerns most families now days. What I'm going to draw from, and post as minimally as I can, comes off of the OCA website's Q&A section. (I don't want to gang-tackle the RCC--not at all--but Protestants, many RCC-ers, and many strains of Orthodox struggle under the wieght of the hierarchical legalisms of the RCC; or so I gather. What I'll present might "clean the pallet." Perhaps interesting to Prot or RCC-ers is that Orthodoxy allows priests to marry--making disucussions take on tacks that are less-familiar ground, and prone to new realizations.)
-------------------------------------------
Q& A #19. What about divorce? What do you have to say about such things?
Hopkogarding divorce, the Orthodox follow Christ in recognizing it as a tragedy and a lack of fulfillment of marriage as the reflection of divine love in the world. The Church teaches the uniqueness of marriage, if it will be perfect, and is opposed to divorce absolutely.
If, however, a marriage breaks down and collapses, the Orthodox Church does in fact allow a second marriage, without excommunication, that is, exclusion from Holy Communion, if there is repentance and a good chance that the new alliance can be Christian.
More than one marriage in any case, however, is frowned upon. It is not allowed to the clergy, and the service of second marriage for laymen is a special rite different from the sacrament as originally celebrated.
-------------------------------------------
Icon: I argue that the Church ACTUALLY changed its stance . . . then changed its reading of scripture.
PoW: NO. It did not. The Church has many split offs that go their own way. But the Church (the Kingdom of God on earth--"Kingdom" can be read: "In the Holy Spirit.") knows the central purpose of mankind. That mission statement has not changed. The details quoted above will provide ample illustration of something deeper going on, than just legalism.
Icon: My evidence that this is hypocritical is that the Church does NOT disfellowship not-for-the-right-reason divorced and remarried couples. The Church USED to do this based on the same basic logic they use today for homosexual couples: the logic of “living in sin”. Why did the Church change its stance on this issue?
Pow: Perhaps you would agree, that if the Church "disfellowship[ed] not-for-the-right-reason divorced and remarried couples" THAT would be legalistic. What the human institution of the church has done in the past, that you mentioned above, does not necessarily reflect what the Church's mission is.
And when you said, "the logic of “living in sin”" with regard to disfellowship, Icon, that does not hold up. The issues have to be unpacked.
The Church, as it says above in the Hopko quote, allows: a second marriage, without excommunication, that is, exclusion from Holy Communion, if there is repentance. . . . (It does NOT allow continued homosexual sin--which we are all agreeing to call it--after repentance.)
quote:
What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? (Romans 6:1)
No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him. (1 John 3:6)
No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. (1 John 3:9)
We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin; the one who was born of God keeps him safe, and the evil one cannot harm him. (1 John 5:18)
The issue, then, seems not to be "living in sin" so much as "continuing to sin." Communion is for sinners--it is the 'medicine of immortality.' NO ONE is worth--that's why we need it. But besides pride and self-righteousness, which must be dealt with to not partake unworthily, this other thing of "continuing in sin without repentance" also makes one unprepared for communion.
It is Protestant, and very American, to consider "Church as just belonging to a group, and bein eligible for holding office. I don't think that we are talking about that here. We are talking about participating in the Communion of the Body with Christ by the Holy Spirit. THAT's Church. That's the issue. (Everything else can be out-sourced?)
As to "not-for-the-right-reason divorced and remarried couples"; they are a good issue to look at. They, like every other sin, every other failing of humanity to "miss the mark" must repent -- IN ALL THAT REPENTANCE MEANS. But then they go on. .. AS MARRIED!!!! The "commited homosecual couple" can go on as "committed" brothers in Christ, or "committed" sisters in Christ after repentance. But there is not "office" of "marriage" for same-sex individuals. There is no sacrament of that kind.
As to sacraments, Marriage is a participation in the ORIGINAL STATE of Paradise. It was older than the Gospel. But it does not point to itself. it points to the sacrament of sacraments -- which is Eucharist. (Actually, Eucharist, Baptism and Chrismation all go together as a unit--but Eucharist is the center.) So, to the repentant two, they are not deprived of any necessary sacrament. They can have the main, central Sacrament of sacraments!
Icon: The current default action is to “disfellowship” any practicing homosexual.
PoW: That's probably true some times/places. But the emphasis on "fellowship" in what you say, seems surfacy. Are they "ex-communicated?" Actually, we Protestants ussually excommunicate ourselves for many months at a time. (John Chrysostom's position is that anyone excommunicating themselves for more than three months had to do penance; and a priest who did so was defrocked!) (We baptize our infants and then excommunicate them for years.) The issue in elligability for communication is not one of a popularity contest, or policy; it is one of PREPARATION.
What do practicing homosexual Christians have to do to PREPARE for communion? (The same, obviously, can be asked of gluttons, gossops, etc.) And the issue, obviously, stretches beyond just the one event of taking communion. What about after? how does one progress in "Life with God?"
THAt brings the community to the thorny issue that you raised first. But I would raise it LAST. What does the community do with an individual (NOT A CLASS!!!!!!) who continues in sin. Communion may be withheld. And WHEN would an actual, literal “disfellowship” occur. Godd question. Maybe if that individual was preaching that others should sin too. That sounds like a cause to cut them off from the physical and social presence and contact of the Church.
I hope that that re-frames the issue.
Icon: What sin IN THE OTHER PERSON do we take strong action to STOP?
PoW: We first work on the beam in our own eye. But with respect to corporately approaching the throne of Grace, and participating by the power of the Holy Spirit in the Body and Blood of our Lord and God, we practice repentance and preparation. But it is that partipation (I'm thinking of your mentioning "fractals" here, Icon!) that is medicine -- "the fountain of immortality" as it says in the Liturgy of St. JohnCrysostom (Probably written by Basil the Great).
Icon: Do we “disfellowship” this couple as Paul seems to suggest that we do with all sexual sin as rb states?
PoW: I think it is more fruitful to ask about all sex. Nuptial sex is unifying--one flesh. But that is 1 Cor. 13 sex. Not all sex in all marriages is Godly. Again, “disfellowship” is the last step; NOT the first. So I'd ask, why are we Protestant's so impotant with respect to Repentance, Confession, and Eucharist? Is THAT the problem?
Here is one final quote from the OCA site:
quote:
Fr. J.M.:
The Orthodox Church recognizes the sanctity of marriage and sees it as a life-long commitment. However, there are certain circumstances in which it becomes evident that there is no love or commitment in a relationship.
While the Church stands opposed to divorce, the Church, in its concern for the salvation of its people, does permit divorced individuals to marry a second and even a third time.
The Order of the Second or Third Marriage is somewhat different than that celebrated as a first marriage and it bears a penitential character. Second or third marriages are performed by "economy" -- that is, out of concern for the spiritual well being of the parties involved and as an exception to the rule, so to speak.
A follow up question occured on that site, as follows:
quote:
Question:
But, unless I am mistaken, Jesus said that unless the divorce is because of adultery (Mt 5:31-32), or it is because a non-believer wants out of the marriage (I can't find the source), the divorcees cannot remarry.
Please explain this to me!
Answer:
Thank you for your enquiry concerning answers which had been previously offered with regard to second and third marriages and the world’s Orthodox population.
Of course I am aware that Christ’s scriptural injunction admits adultery as the only reason for divorce. The question that I had answered involved the contemporary practice of the Orthodox Church rather than the scriptural injunction. I have been a priest for nearly 25 years. I have seen quite a number of couples seek divorces. I have never seen a case that did not involve adultery - whether it be a case of giving oneself over to another person, or to another thing, such as alcohol, drugs, work, etc. One can surely put their spouse in a secondary position as a result of becoming infatuated, obsessed and/or controlled with/by another person; one can also surely put their spouse in a secondary position as a result of becoming infatuated, obsessed and/or controlled with/by power, wealth, addictions, careers, etc.
In the answer that was given the principle of economia ("the Church, in its concern for the salvation of its people") was being emphasized.
--------------------------
Please bear in mind, that usually those who submit questions are coming from a very specific perspective. I try to answer their specific questions without providing a complete theological treatise on every minute detail of a subject. Unfortunately, when we "generalize" the questions and answers for the web page, the nuances are sometimes lost.
As a further clarification, my original answer talks of "an exception to the rule" -- implying that the "rule" is one marriage. Also it is very clear in the answer that "the Church stands opposed to divorce." Had the original questioner asked, "What is the Orthodox ideal of Marriage?", I would have responded somewhat differently. The question, however, was whether or not the Orthodox Church permits second marriages with special attention to whether there is a difference in the service.
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 04/03/2002 10:15:43 AM | | Back to Top | | |
| 103 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:29 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 |
|
|