Open Theism Discussion Board
  HomeLog InRegisterSearch the ForumHelp
   
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > A Gay Man Defends Himself  Forum Quick Jump
 
New Topic Post Reply Printable Version
548 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page :
 
[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Iconoclast
Registered Member


Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
 
   Posted 5/27/2003 6:44 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
POW

Yes, Icon, the Church's job is to parent. The Church is our Mother.

Iconoclast

Yep, that's where we disagree.

There are three psychological "states": parent, adult and child. Our "parent" is the amalgamation of all the "parent tapes" that were instilled into us at a young age. The "parent" represents all the rules for "right living": keeping safe, eating appropriately, respecting elders and so on. These rules are clearly crucial to our survival and well-being but can become the source of neurotic behavior when we apply them unconditionally. When we apply them past their time of usefullness. As we develop our "adult" we learn to nuance these rules to be more in line with the actual reality that we experience. To not do this is again a form of neurosis.

There are actually two "parent" states: the Critical Parent and the Nurturing Parent. Typically modeled as the Father and the Mother respectively but not always of course.

It is very interesting to me that your line above unconsciously included both "parent states". "... job is TO parent" is the Critical Parent. "The Church is our mother" is the Nurturing Parent.

I would like to suggest that the church who thinks its job is to parent is an authoritarian church who is creating neurotic adults. The church's job is to help us all develop our "adult" such that we can all learn to discern for ourselves how to love one another in the actual concrete reality that we face. The "parent" is helpful when we are all little children but when we are adults a parent acting in a "parental" role is a problem. It only engages the old parent tapes. We don't need parents - we need other adults who are also committed to developing their "adult" through a dialogue (search for truth) about how to love one another. It requires "adults" to dialogue.

I see your view as looking at gay monogamous couples from a "parent" view. I see you wanting to hold on to old "parent tapes" refusing to nuance them by using your "adult". I also see you defending this view based on what your "parent tapes" (the church) has decided are the appropriate rules to follow. Moreover, I often experience your style of communication as a "parent" style. You seem to speak to me from your "parent" quite often. I would prefer to hear more from your "adult".

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
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 5/28/2003 12:59 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:
POW

Yes, Icon, the Church's job is to parent. The Church is our Mother.

Iconoclast

Yep, that's where we disagree.

There are three psychological "states": parent, adult and child. ...




So Icon has this ditty that he knows. And he wants to try applying it.

Point that ditty in the direction it requires, Icon. I was quoting.
So, try that ditty on God our Father, and see how it fits.

quote:
http://orthodoxlutheran.fws1.com/bvm/mother.htm

Mary, Mother of the Church




INTRODUCTION

Most of us are familiar with the Christmas staple Joyful, joyful, we adore thee. Many Christians find it in their hymnals and probably know the words from the third verse, "Thou our Father, Christ our Brother". This language and imagery of family is quite familiar. Christ Himself taught us to pray to God as "Our Father." In his letter to the Galatians, Paul tells us we are adopted sons (and daughters) of God, redeemed by His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ. In this way Christ is our Brother for we share the same Father.

Yet this spiritual family is incomplete. I am bold enough to say that there has never been a person born of only a father. If God is our Father and Christ our Brother, who then is our Mother? Or are we some kind of spiritual orphans, or worse yet, spiritual monstrosities who have come into the world and will leave it without a mother?

North American Protestants are for the most part embarrassingly unprepared to answer such a question. In fact, most have probably never given the matter any thought at all. Yet it has not always been this way. The European Lutheran Churches during the Age of Lutheran Orthodoxy (16th and 17th centuries) could quite easily offer not one but TWO answers to this question. Our Mother is the Holy Church, and Our Mother is the Blessed Virgin Mary.


MOTHER CHURCH

In English we are accustomed to speak of the Church as "it". This is most unfortunate, for throughout the history of Christendom the Church has always been a "she". The gender of the Greek word ekklisia is feminine, and Paul himself speaks of the Church as the "bride of Christ", clearly indicating the Church is a 'she'.

It is common to hear Roman Catholics speak of "Mother Church." You might even hear a Lutheran use the phrase, although unfortunately as often in sarcasm as in sincerity. All Lutherans, however, should gladly embrace the language of the Church as Mother. We can find testimony to this understanding in no less a source than the Large Catechism. In the section "Of the Creed", Luther speaks of the Church as

    the mother that begets and bears every Christian through the Word of God.


The Church is the mother who begets and bears the Christian because the Church is the site and the means by which the Holy Spirit works in the life of the Christian. The Church with the Holy Spirit begets the Christian, and the Church bears the Christian in his or her growth "to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ." (Eph. 4: 13) The Church is that tender mother who nurtures us, teaches us, guides us, admonishes us, protects us, and most of all, through the sacraments which are her mark, administers to us the forgiveness of sins. As the Large Catechism continues,

    outside of this Christian Church, where the Gospel is not, there is no forgiveness, as also there can be no holiness [sanctification].


She does none of these things on her own authority, of course, but only on the authority of God Himself. Jesus Christ has given to her the keys to the kingdom (Matt. 16: 19), and He has promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against her (Matt. 16: 18).

While this language of the Church as our Mother may be strange to the ears of a modern Lutheran, it was familiar to the lips of the early Lutherans during the Age of Orthodoxy. None have written more boldly and more succinctly than Johann Gerhard, one of the greatest Lutheran theologians, in his Sacred Meditations:

    No man will have God for his father in heaven who refuses to have the Church for his mother upon the earth.



THE VIRGIN MOTHER

While the language of the Church as our Mother may sound vaguely acceptable to the Lutheran, the language of the Virgin Mary as our Mother is harder to swallow. And yet, what more easy conclusion can one draw then that, with Christ as our Brother and God our Father, our mother should therefore be the same mother which bore Christ and the same woman chosen by our Father to bear His Son? Martin Luther wrote that

    Mary is the Mother of Jesus and the Mother of all of us even though it was Christ alone who reposed on her knees . . . If he is ours, we ought to be in his situation; there where he is, we ought also to be and all that he has ought to be ours, and his mother is also our mother.


Yet what is the contemporary Lutheran's reaction to this statement? To run in fear from 'Romanizing ideas', or to embrace it in joy? If we listen to Luther, we hear that we are not motherless Christians. Rather

    This is the great joy, of which the angel [of the Lord (Luke 2: 9-12)] speaks, this is the consolation and the superabundant goodness of God, that man (if he has this faith) may boast of such treasure as that Mary is his real mother, Christ his brother, and God his father. For these things are, all of them, true and they come to pass, provided we believe them.



MARY AS THE TYPE OF THE CHURCH

Do we Christians have two mothers or one? Just as there is "one God and Father of all" (Eph. 4: 6), there is also one mother of the Christian. It is here that we begin to see the similarities between the Church and the Blessed Virgin Mary.

St. Ambrose, the fourth century Bishop of Milan, great opponent of the Arian heresy, and spiritual father of St. Augustine, maintained that "Mary is the type of the Church". The Commission on Theology and Church Relations of the LCMS describes a type as

    a person, institution, or event which prefigures and foreshadows a new and greater reality (the antitype). The antitype historically and theologically corresponds to, elucidates, fulfills, and eschatologically completes the type. The antitype is no mere repetition of the type but is always greater than its prefigurement.


Mary as the type of the Church flows from both Mary's and the Church's relations of mother, virgin, and bride. In the words of Johann Gerhard,

    The holy Church of God sustains the relations of mother, virgin, bride. She is as a mother because she daily bears spiritual sons to God. She is as a chaste virgin, because she keeps herself pure from all unholy alliances with the devil and the world. She is a bride, because Christ has betrothed her to Himself by an eternal covenant, and has given to her the pledge of the Spirit.


How can we not see the Blessed Virgin here as well? Mary is the mother of Christ. She is the sole source of Christ's human nature. She is the Theotokos, the bearer of God, of the Logos who "became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1: 14), just as the Church is the bearer of the Word of God and "begets and bears every Christian" through that Word.

Mary is the spotless virgin, who not only conceived as a virgin and bore her Son as a virgin, but remained a virgin until her falling asleep in the Lord. In the same way the Church is that virgin sanctified and cleansed by Christ, "that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish." (Eph. 5: 27)

Finally, Mary is the bride of God the Holy Spirit, for together they conceived God's only Son. Likewise, the Church is the Bride of Christ, so close to him that she is His own flesh and bones whom He loves and for whom He gave himself up (Eph. 5: 25, 28-32).

Lutheran hymnals acknowledge the singular place of the Blessed Virgin in the Church in verse 2 of Ye Watchers and Ye Holy Ones. Sadly, you will not find this verse in the butchered version of the hymn now found in Lutheran Worship, but you will find it in both Lutheran Book of Worship #175 and The Lutheran Hymnal #475. There the Church of the Augsburg Confession itself proclaims that the Blessed Virgin, "Thou Bearer of th'eternal Word", leads the praises of the heavenly host, the "bright seraphs, cherubim and thrones", the "dominions, princedoms, pow'rs, virtues, archangels, angels' choirs."

Moreover, we can say even that Mary is the personification of the Church in two ways. First, the Canticle of Mary, the Magnificat, is at the same time the Song of the Church. What Mary sings, so the Church sings in Vespers and in Evening Prayer, part of her daily office. When we sing

    My soul magnifies the Lord
    and my spirit rejoices in God, my Savior
    for he has regarded the lowliness of his handmaiden.
    For behold, from this day all generations will call me blessed.
    For he who is mighty has done great things to me,
    And holy is his name
    . . .



He has remembered his mercy and sustained his servant Israel
as he promised to our fathers, to Abraham and his seed forever.
we sing as the Church, the Bride and Body of Christ who magnifies and rejoices in her Savior. We are the lowly handmaiden who has been chosen, just as Israel was chosen to be "a holy people" and servant of the Lord, sustained by the love of God ("The Lord did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any other people, for you were the least of all peoples." [Deut. 7: 7]), and just as the Blessed Virgin Mary was chosen to be the "maidservant of the Lord" (Luke 1: 38), regarded in her lowliness, sustained by God through whom nothing is impossible (Luke 1: 37).

The Church follows Holy Scripture which itself suggests Mary is the personification of the Church. In Revelation 12, John tells us of "a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a garland of twelve stars." (Rev. 12: 1) The undivided Church considered this to be an allusion to the Virgin Mary. Note that the "woman clothed with the sun" bears and gives birth to a "male Child" whom "a great, fiery red dragon" seeks to consume. This son is "to rule all nations with a rod of iron. And her Child was caught up to God and His throne." (Rev. 12: 5) Luther followed this interpretation of the Church in one of his last hymns, To Me She's Dear the Worthy Maid. In this hymn Luther sings:

    She wears of purest gold a crown
    Twelve stars their rays are twining;
    Her raiment, glorious as the sun,
    And bright from far is shining.
    Her feet the moon, Are set upon.
    She is the bride, with the Lord to bide.
    Sore travail is upon her;
    She bringeth forth a noble Son
    Whom all the world must honor,
    Their King, the only one.


Moreover, this woman is the symbol of the Church. The woman flees from the dragon into "the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God" (Rev. 12: 6), "where she is nourished for a time and times and half a time, from the presence of the serpent." (Rev. 12: 14) Yet the dragon continues to pursue her and persecute her, and when he realizes he will not be able to destroy her, he goes out "to make war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." (Rev. 12: 17) Is this not the Church who lives in the wilderness, this pilgrim people living off the bread of life provided by God Himself, not manna but now the very flesh and blood of Christ? Is this not the Church persecuted and pursued by the Devil, and yet the Church who will never see the gates of hell prevail against her? Is this not the Church who bears many children and against whom "the devil and all his works and all his ways" (Formula of Baptism) makes war?


MARY, MOTHER OF THE CHURCH

what is the use in following St. Ambrose and saying Mary is the type of the Church? Through the Blessed Virgin we Christians come to know the nature of the Church, and as we ourselves are that Body of Christ, we come to know our own corporate identity and the promise of our own corporate future.

I have already discussed at some length the way that Mary, through her canticle, teaches us how to love and honor God. Her example teaches as well that the Church is not to expect power or riches or honor or glory from the world. She teaches that the Church is the bearer of the Word but not the source of the Word. She teaches that the Church is a mother and should raise Christians as any good mother would raise her own children. She teaches that the Church must be bold before Christ and intercede with Him for others (John 2). She teaches that the Church must not expect comfort but persecution, to expect not constant joy but sorrow and suffering as well. As Johann Gerhard writes,

    The Church is our spiritual mother, and yet like Mary, the mother of Christ, she must stand weeping at the cross of the Savior.


Mary is the symbol of the Church, the type. This does not mean that she is simply a sign, pointing the way toward something beyond herself. Instead, she both points toward the reality and at the same time contains that reality itself.

Here we see the importance of the four Marian teachings of her motherhood, her perpetual virginity, her sinlessness, her assumption. If we reject these ancient teachings of the Church, we become completely unable to see Mary as the type of the Church. Then in turn we begin to lose any sense of the nature and eschatological hope of the Church, and of our own corporate nature and identity.

In a way it is somewhat misleading to refer to Mary as 'Mother of the Church,' which Pope Paul VI formally declared for Roman Catholics in 1964. Instead, Mary is best thought of as the type of the Church not simply through her motherhood, but also through her identity as both virgin and bride. And being the type of the Church is not the same as saying Mary is a metaphor for the Church, for a metaphor does not contain the essential reality of that which it is describing. Jesus Christ tells (Matt. 13) the kingdom of heaven is like a sower who went out to sow; like a man who sowed good seed in his field, but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat; like a mustard seed which a man took and sowed in his field; like leaven which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal till it was all leavened. But of course the kingdom of heaven is not in fact a sower or a mustard seed or leaven. 'Mary as the type of the Church', on the other hand, says instead that Mary and the Church share an objective, a real, relation. Mary and the Church reveal the truth about one another.


CONCLUSION

We can love and honor and venerate the Blessed Virgin Mary while at the same time keep her completely distinct from and infinitely inferior to Christ precisely in understanding her in and through the Church. We know that the Church is the Body of Christ, not the Head. We know the Church is the Bride of Christ, not the groom. We know the Church is the vehicle for the Holy Spirit who sanctifies, and does not herself sanctify. At the same time, one cannot accept the Head and reject the Body. One cannot honor the Bridegroom and reproach the Bride. One cannot love the Father and despise the Mother.

If we retain a right understanding and a right praise of the Church, Our Mother whom we must find first if we are to find Christ[!], could it be that we will find the generosity to try to understand the devotion of Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism to the Blessed Virgin? If we can proclaim after Johann Gerhard

    Contemplate, O devout soul, the exalted dignity of the Church, and render due thanks therefor to Almighty God. Great indeed are the benefits which God bestows upon us in and through the Church.
    can we perhaps also be moved to look upon those Roman Catholics who advance the conception of Mary as the 'mediatrix of all graces' with Christian charity? In my humble opinion, a Roman Catholic dogmatic declaration of the Blessed Virgin as Co-Mediatrix can only inflict more harm upon the Body of Christ, much as the unilateral papal declarations regarding her immaculate conception and her assumption have done. It has not been only the Protestants who have cursed the Church with schism! At the same time, it is imperative upon Lutherans to engage this pious opinion with the greatest charity, to assume the best intentions of our brothers and sisters in Christ.


It must always be clear, of course, that for a Lutheran, Mary Mother of the Church is at most a pious opinion, never to be imposed. We are free to hold it so long as that piety does not produce heretical conclusions or binding dogma. At the same time, let every Lutheran speak of his and her "Holy Mother Church" boldly, outside of whom there is no forgiveness of sins, no holiness, no sanctification, no truth, no salvation, no Christ.

© 2000 Darel E. Paul



Do you have problems with God being Father? (Or do you want to be?)


Hear from a strident Protestant Reformed theologian, who likes to slam CAP-O Orthodoxy, and yet...

quote:
http://www.credenda.org/issues/8-5thema.php

Modern life has robbed us of so much. Far from much Protestant thinking is the image of the Church as our mother. The ancient prophets often describe the Church in motherly terms (Is. 49;50;54;66:7ff; Jer. 3,4). The book of Revelation depicts the Church as a mother giving birth to the Messiah and then shows her hiding to avoid persecution (Rev. 12). Similarly, the Apostle Paul glories that the "Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all" (Gal. 4:26). The early Protestants were much closer to the ancient and medieval heart on this matter. Calvin encouraged us to

[/list]learn even from the simple title "mother" how useful, indeed how necessary, it is that we should know her. For there is no other way to enter into life unless this mother conceive us in her womb, give us birth, nourish us at her breast, and lastly, unless she keep us under her care and guidance until putting off mortal flesh, we become like angels. Our weakness does not allow us to be dismissed from her school until we have been pupils all our lives. Away from her bosom one cannot hope for any forgiveness of sins or any salvation.[/list]

Many modern Christians don't even have a mental drawer in which to file talk about the Church, let alone the Mother Church. We can speak of churches and the local church and the invisible church, but we don't have a place to speak of the Church. It makes some squeamish. Older Protestants didn't have this problem, but an industrial-strength individualism has beaten our thinking into submission.




What company to keep, and who to have in the family album?



Edited by - PotOnWheel on 05/28/2003 06:07:21 AM
Back to Top
 

DLW
Registered Member


Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
 
   Posted 5/28/2003 6:13 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
This was taken from today's ABC's The Note. It illustrates how gay-rights activists are influential in politics.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch's Betty Cuniberti writes, "The Gephardts are presenting their handling of [their daughter Chrissy's public declaration] as a stark contrast to that of Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife, Lynne, who once said of their gay daughter, 'Mary has never declared such a thing.' Democrats are, in fact, dueling for the gay vote, trying to lure fiscally minded, gay Republicans to their side. Taking this risk hints at progress." LINK

Jake Tapper's commentary on NPR's All Things Considered takes a look at how Congressman Gephardt incorporates his family into his campaign narrative, complete with what The Note thinks is probably the wittiest use of "leave no child behind" in at least the last couple of weeks. Listen here. LINK

Tapper contrasts Gephardt's stumping family references with Al Gore's skeptically received '92 and '96 convention speeches (his son's car accident and his sister's lung cancer, respectively). Tapper says, "This is not to say that politicians shouldn't use their real-life family experiences to help explain their views on policies," as Gephardt does with his son Matt's fight with cancer and his daughter Kate's decision to teach.

But Tapper wonders how Gephardt's 1996 House vote against civil unions will be recast in the presidential race now that his older daughter Chrissy has publicly announced that she is a lesbian.

Is Chrissy a constitutional lesbian or a bisexual lesbian? Statistics would indicate the latter to be more likely to be the case. So much for Gephardt's baptist upbringing...

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
 

GregBoyd
Registered Member


Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
 
   Posted 5/28/2003 4:55 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
POW: I took my name out of your post, because I am not "the Church." You don't get it, Icon. And you would prefer to be impowered to control things, and set them up the way you wish.

Doc: From where I sit, POW may have a point. Icon "doesn’t get it." I think I may just now being "getting it." I’ve watched this exchange between Icon and POW and have been bewildered at how Icon’s push for logical consistency between the remarriage issue and the gay issue is simply not acknowledged. POW rather sees Icon as trying to "control" things and manipulate language and… well, a lot of things.

What I think Icon isn’t getting is that POW is operating from a different ultimate authority base than Icon. For POW, it seems the "the church" is the ultimate authority –more specifically, the eastern orthodox church. The eastern orthodox church grants accommodating grace to remarried divorced heterosexuals, but not to constitutionally gay people. The church deems the former an acceptable accommodation to a non-ideal situation, but to the latter it is deemed "permissiveness." It’s loving to let divorced people remarry, but unloving to let gay people, for love requires that they remain celebate. That’s just the way it is. And, it is believed, God is behind it all.

All attempts on Icon’s part to rationally discern why there is this apparent inconsistency are deemed by POW to be the rantings of a person who is "individualistic" and "controlling" and simply not thinking within the context of "the church."

I’ve been very baffled by the unproductivity of the exchange. But – tell me if I’m wrong POW -- I suspect that its because Icon is running his logical head up against a wall of ecclesiastical authority. And if this ecclesiastical authority isn’t going to budge, Icon’s head is just getting to more and more bruised.

Doc

"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10.
Back to Top
 

GregBoyd
Registered Member


Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
 
   Posted 5/28/2003 5:09 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
This discussion has helped me see the levels of questions people answer – often without knowing it – on their way to addressing the question: "What is my attitude towards Christian gay unions?" Here’s 8 questions we all answer – whether we know it or not – on our way to answering this question. I think disagreements about answers regarding gay-unions can be assessed as a disagreement about one or more of these more fundamental questions.

It would be helpful, at least for the sake of clarity, if we got on the table where more specifically we disagree vis-à-vis these more fundamental questions. For example, it would be interesting to see the different ways Icon, DLW and POW answer these questions. Here goes...

1. How certain are you that the New Testament is infallible in its ethical teachings?
2. How certain are you that the New Testament teaches that all forms of homosexuality are wrong? How certain are you of the original meaning of Romans 1, of the phrase arsen koiti and the term malakoi?
3. How certain are you that the Bible’s teaching on homosexuality (see #1) is transcultural rather than cultural (as with women’s braided hair, jewlery, etc…)?
4. How certain are you that the Church's traditional teaching on gay unions (or ethical teaching in general) is binding to all people at all times?
5. How certain are you that at least some gay people could not help but be that way and cannot help but be that way?
6. How certain are you that gay unions you’ve experienced exhibit a love blessed by God?
7. How certain are you that prohibiting life-long gay unions is the best option in all circumstances? How certain are you that allowing life-long committed unions is sometimes the best option?
8. How certain are you that the way you balance options 1-6 is compelling enough to affirm that all believers should adopt it?

Hope this helps the discussion move forward.

Greg

"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10.
Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 5/28/2003 5:41 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Graciously written, Greg.

quote:
I’ve been very baffled by the unproductivity of the exchange. But – tell me if I’m wrong POW -- I suspect that its because Icon is running his logical head up against a wall of ecclesiastical authority. (elsewhere: "For POW, it seems the "the church" is the ultimate authority –more specifically, the eastern orthodox church. ") And if this ecclesiastical authority isn’t going to budge, Icon’s head is just getting to more and more bruised.


But...

No, for Iconoclast (appropriate name) the "Church" does not exist except as a human institution reducible to the votes and collected wisdom of individual people. Its as All-American as that.

But that is not the Church. Neither is the Church the "eastern orthodox church" -- and even the Eastern Orthodox Church says so. (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/54h/54h042.html )

quote:
CHRISTIAN HISTORY: The Orthodox claim to constitute the only true Church. This claim, naturally, makes Catholics and Protestants balk. How should we understand this claim? What, according to the Orthodox, is our status before God?

BARTHOLOMEW I: We do not hold that exclusivity means judgment or exclusion. The idea that membership in a visible Church organization is requisite for membership in heaven is based on a false paradigm—that we somehow parallel the kingdom of God in this world. The kingdom is not an exterior reality, rather it is interior, at least until the end of time.

In identifying the Orthodox Church as the Church founded by the Lord Jesus Christ through His Holy Apostles, we by no means circumscribe or limit the kingdom of God. We know well the words of the Lord, that the Spirit blows where he will, and we acknowledge that the power, mercy and love of God are well beyond our comprehension.

While affirming that "He that is not with Me is against Me" (St. Luke 11:23), we also affirm that "He that is not against us is for us" (St. Luke 9:50). This historical antinomy is ever present in the life of the Church. But it nevertheless does not blur the definition of the faith, the canonical boundaries of the good order of the Church, or our desire to call all mankind to the knowledge of the truth. We prefer the spirit of genuine love and concern and avoid the kind of triumphalism that has caused so much alienation and division throughout the ages.


Where you say "ecclesiastical authority" that is something evident all over the place, and DLW even has given it an academic name. But THAT is not the Church. And that is not a good representation of ECCLESSIOLOGY. Ecclessiology seems best represented by Zizioulas, as "Pneumatologically conditioned Christology" -- meaning, you take Christology and you condition it with a treatment of Pneumatology. Picture that? The Church IS a physical presence. That is the way God is working things. To deny that is to run up nose to nose with God -- a fearful prospect. (And don't even BEGIN to say that the importance of the Church as real, as flesh and blood, and as authorized and enlivened by God is just Eastern, or RCC. I posted quotes from Protestant Reformed and Lutheran above!!!) However, most of the excesses and most of the distortions, historically, have happend because of the relative exclussivity of the Christological aspect of the Church. The Spirit (the pneuma, for those reading) "conditions" the physical church. The charismatic nature of the Spirit liberates the history bound character of history, leading the Church into all truth, and making of the diversity of forms demonstrations of unity instead of discourd.

That is also why, DLW that while we argree on the progressive nature of revelation I do not join you in following the Roman Catholic tradtion of replacing the past revelation with new. The Spirit's role means that the fuller does not replace, but illumines the previous.

    Greg, I hope that you never underestimate the damage of the 'filoque'; it made the Papacy inevitable (Peter, Christ's representative given supremacy over God the Spirit, as the co-source of the Spirit's procession).



When I say that the Church has not done something, I'm speaking from the present moment in history. Were the whole Church (evidence of the Spirit's move, unifying) THEN I would have to say something else.


SO...

It turns out that the "ecclesiastical authority" you speak of is the Spirit of God, and the Church that is born through the Spirit, and Abides in the Spirit.


The REAL issue, Icon put into words just fine: What is the goal?

THE GOAL OF THE CHURCH IS TO MAKE SAINTS. Not to make life comfortable.

We have only just begun to be conformed into the image of the Son. THAT is the only goal.

Today I was thinking about Ephesians 4: 13

    12 to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until[u/] we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.
    14 Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming.


"..until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ." ANYTHING that leads to the fullness of Christ, no matter how hard, is worth it. In whatever state God allows, He also promises to work side-by-side with us. And God is faithful in every instance.

As the Church we also have to work side-by-side with everyone who is weak, or even just challenged. (Don't assume that everyone with this 'challenge' is weak. Neither encourage them to sin, saying that it is OK, that this is some hidden sacrament.)


Moody Radio, a few days ago, about 3 PM when I was on the freeway going to pick up my kids, had a DJ who intersperced quotes between song-sets. One was by Moody -- a typical "three kinds of Christians" -- but not one that I could find quoted on the internet. (which has many copies of one quote). The point was that from the one Gospel of John three stages of Spiritual maturity are illustrated.

Moving Children of God through those stages is the singular work of the Church.

D.L. Moody and The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, Bartholomew I. would agree!!!!


It is the "authority" of THAT WORK that I look for.


I do not find that to the the focus of what Iconoclast has posted. And his cynacism points just the opposite way.


Thanks for posting Greg.

(I emailed Moody Radio, and they are looking for the quotes.)



Edited by - PotOnWheel on 05/28/2003 10:47:29 PM
Back to Top
 

Iconoclast
Registered Member


Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
 
   Posted 5/29/2003 4:43 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Doc

For example, it would be interesting to see the different ways Icon, DLW and POW answer these questions. Here goes...

Iconoclast

1. How certain are you that the New Testament is infallible in its ethical teachings?

I hold to the authority of scripture.

2. How certain are you that the New Testament teaches that all forms of homosexuality are wrong? How certain are you of the original meaning of Romans 1, of the phrase arsen koiti and the term malakoi?

I do not see the New Testament teach that all forms of homosexuality are wrong. I am very confident that the phrases ‘arsenokoiti’ and ‘malakoi’ do NOT mean all forms of homosexuality.

3. How certain are you that the Bible’s teaching on homosexuality (see #1) is transcultural rather than cultural (as with women’s braided hair, jewlery, etc…)?

What teaching? The only thing that I see as a “teaching” is Romans 1 which basically says that IF you totally give up on God THEN God will give you up to your own passions which includes such things as exchanging ‘natural’ sex for ‘unnatural’ sex. This is really a very oblique reference that does not in any way speak to the situation where someone is constitutionally homosexual. In other words the whole Romans 1 passage is not intended to be a teaching about homosexuality and thus we simply do not have any teaching in the New Testament regarding homosexuality in general.

4. How certain are you that the Church's traditional teaching on gay unions (or ethical teaching in general) is binding to all people at all times?

I am quite certain that the Church’s traditional ethical teaching is NOT binding to all people at all times. This is really easy to show.

5. How certain are you that at least some gay people could not help but be that way and cannot help but be that way?

I consider this to be a settled fact.

6. How certain are you that gay unions you’ve experienced exhibit a love blessed by God?

I am very certain.

7. How certain are you that prohibiting life-long gay unions is the best option in all circumstances? How certain are you that allowing life-long committed unions is sometimes the best option?

I am certain that allowing life-long committed unions is sometimes the best option.

8. How certain are you that the way you balance options 1-6 is compelling enough to affirm that all believers should adopt it?

I think the evidence is compelling. However, Paul said that for some eating meat that was sacrificed is a major problem. Your “SHOULD adopt it” gives me pause. To make this a stumbling block for some is not helpful. At the same time it is not helpful for those who do have a major problem with eating meat that was sacrificed to go around condemning those who actually do eat meat that was sacrificed.

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
 

Iconoclast
Registered Member


Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
 
   Posted 5/29/2003 5:15 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
POW

When I say that the Church has not done something, I'm speaking from the present moment in history. Were the whole Church (evidence of the Spirit's move, unifying) THEN I would have to say something else.

Iconoclast

What I hear you saying is that you determine whether something has been blessed by the 'Church' when you see a convergence of practice amongst the major 'churches'. Thus, since most churches these days allow divorced and remarried folks in then that must be okay. Then THAT is evidence of the Holy Spirit moving within the 'Church'.

This reminds me of the technology adoption lifecycle. Whenever a new technology is introduced the population adopts it in a bell-curve shaped distribution pattern. You first have your early adopter or 'pioneers', then you have your pragmatists, then you have your conservatives and then you have your laggards.

Sounds to me like you are more toward the conservative or laggard side of the adoption curve. I tend to be more of an early pragmatist. You seem to think I am even before the 'early adopter' stage. This is typical of how the conservatives and laggards view the early pragmatists.

Doc, thanks for the insight on this. It is now clear to me that POW and I will get nowhere in our discussion for a good many years to come. I think it will take anywhere between 20 to 50 years before the conservatives and laggards see the Spirit moving on this issue.

POW, I see the Spirit moving on this issue. I know you do not and nor will you if your criteria for the Spirit moving on an issue is to see a predominant majority of the 'Church' adopting the issue.

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 05/29/2003 10:24:33 PM
Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 5/30/2003 12:43 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Icon attempts the STRAWMAN approach...

quote:
What I hear you saying is that you determine whether something has been blessed by the 'Church' when you see a convergence of practice amongst the major 'churches'.

POW, ... I know you do not and nor will you if your criteria for the Spirit moving on an issue is to see a predominant majority of the 'Church' adopting the issue.



NOT WHAT I SAID.

"Predeominant majority" becomes a democracy of men. That is not the Church. Sometimes it has only been a small minority who held out for the truth. Ans sometimes it has been those who were countercultural -- like the monks and the "Fools for Christ." (Icon is following the majority of the populous here, conforming to the squeezing presures of the world around him.)

What I DID say is this:

quote:
. . .The point was that from the one Gospel of John three stages of Spiritual maturity are illustrated. Moving Children of God through those stages is the singular work of the Church. )D.L. Moody and The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, Bartholomew I. would agree!!!!) It is the "authority" of THAT WORK that I look for.


KNOWN BY FRUIT!!!


Very clearly, Icon's proposal is at odds with the "Moving Children of God through those stages of Spiritual maturity approach." That's why I called it "shortsighted Christianity" -- it only aims at the first stage, and stops there, even rejecting the others as inconvenient. (And it promotes those who "can" as stronger than those who must obstain.) The Goal is for the "now." That in itself is fishy. Christuianity is about the "until..." spoken of in the passage I quoted above.


The authority is the Spirit, not what is "spiritual" in our own eyes.


But if you had really read what I posted you would know that (instead of setting up and attacking a STRAWMAN).


PoW


(When Moody radio sends me that quote I will be back to post it.)
Back to Top
 

DLW
Registered Member


Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
 
   Posted 5/30/2003 5:03 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
From ABC's The Note

"Joe Lieberman's positions on gay rights, while generally supportive and deeply-rooted, also include views that gay activists do not consider as strong as those of many other presidential candidates."

"'He was a visionary on non-discrimination issues, and he is now leading the way on domestic partner benefits,' said Sean Cahill, director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute. 'But on marriage issues, he's just not there.'"

Mr. Lieberman is expected to attend a breakfast with members of the Los Angeles area gay community today.

"'People will be polite, but there will be tough questions,' said Darrel Cummings, who soon will become chief operating officer of the Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center. 'The civil union issue is important to us.'"

The Lieberman view that most bothers many of these activists is his belief that civil unions are a state, not a federal, issue. He told the task force in a questionnaire this month, "I am running for president, not governor of a state, and it has long been my position that a state may adopt for itself any civil union law that it wishes."

And, he said flatly, "I do not support gay marriage."


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 5/30/2003 12:54 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
It seemed to me that DLW was proposing this for those that are too weak otherwise, while ICON was proposing this for those who are strong enough.
Back to Top
 

Iconoclast
Registered Member


Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
 
   Posted 5/30/2003 1:16 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
POW

Very clearly, Icon's proposal is at odds with the "Moving Children of God through those stages of Spiritual maturity approach." That's why I called it "shortsighted Christianity" -- it only aims at the first stage, and stops there, even rejecting the others as inconvenient. (And it promotes those who "can" as stronger than those who must obstain.) The Goal is for the "now." That in itself is fishy.

Iconoclast

Is this an example of setting up a "strawman" and attacking it?

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
 

Iconoclast
Registered Member


Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
 
   Posted 5/30/2003 1:21 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
POW

What I DID say is this:

quote:
. . .The point was that from the one Gospel of John three stages of Spiritual maturity are illustrated. Moving Children of God through those stages is the singular work of the Church. )D.L. Moody and The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, Bartholomew I. would agree!!!!) It is the "authority" of THAT WORK that I look for.


KNOWN BY FRUIT!!!

Iconoclast

I'm lost. Are you now saying that you are looking for results? For the "fruit" that is produced to determine whether something is blessed by the Spirit or not?

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
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 5/30/2003 5:50 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Looks to me like Icon is using the "end justifies the means" paradigm. I don't believe that to contain truth.

Scripture and the Fathers of the Church knew the Fruit of the Spirit to not be a mere intermediary, a goal of an intermediary path. While DLW, as I remember, presented homosexual-covenants as a means to prevent some worse thing. But Icon presented homosexual marriage as a goal in itself. And he presents such sin as a means to another goal too. But, that does not at all resemble the structure the Scripture presents when it talks about the "Fruit of the Spirit." In Scripture the Fruit of the Spirit IS THE GOAL ITELF, AND NOT THE MEANS TO AN END. Astonishingly, Icon is presenting a nuevo-Ethics to replace the ethics he does not like. But it is ethics just the same. And, again, The "Fruit of the Spirit" is not human ethics.

In Scripture, the Fruit of the Spirit is something born of the Spirit in us. For everyone within the Church THAT fruit of love is born in the Church. And being divine it is enough and sufficient for everyone, life long!!!!!!!

Anyone is free to walk away from that sufficiency of God. ("That which is voluntary is more durable and safe." St. Gregory of Naz.) But to all who walk with God, no un-needed divice and no crutch of sin--no "cheep grace"--is necessary.

Anyone who says different is giving away their motives, and giving away where their heart lies. Anyone trying to excuse it as not being sin (I seem to remember DLW conceeding that it is sin.) is placing above God ungodly human desires, and clothing them in a veil they baptize as being godly-end-bringer.


quote:
PoW: KNOWN BY FRUIT!!!

Iconoclast: I'm lost. Are you now saying that you are looking for results? For the "fruit" that is produced to determine whether something is blessed by the Spirit or not?



Icon points to the "results" that come "after." While for God's work, the "fruit" is simultaneously God's act in us AND the effect in us. And not only is it contempraneously the same; it is ontologically the same too. Rather than pointing to "something. . .blessed by the Spirit (or not)" the Fruit of the Spirit IS THE BLESSING OF THE GRACE OF GOD'S SPIRIT IN ITSELF.

Again, THE FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT IS THE GOAL ITELF, AND NOT THE MEANS TO AN END.

Iconoclast's paradigm is "the end (human love) that justifies the means (humanly-blessed homosexual "marriage"). No matter which of the many testemonials that Icon has posted on this thread, none are records of God's Fruit. This does not mean that those in his stories are not Christians. And it does not mean that there is no fruitfulness in their lives. And it does not mean that there is no Christian love between the people described. MY POSTS HAVE NOT DENIED THIS. But homosexual union is sin. Most all of us have sin in our lives -- and Christians can sin and still be Christians, and have the Spirit working otherwise in their lives. (But some humans overcome sin.) And sin is sin.

And, so, most importantly...

The Fruit of the Spirit does not require sin as a crutch. The Spirit of God does not require compromise to work redemption and transfiguration in our lives. And God is not powerless in the face of our weaknesses. The ONLY limitation is our own willingness. The ONLY limitation is our own willingness. The ONLY limitation is our own willingness. And those who counsel others to dance with sin need to be examined carefully in the words they speak, and the influence they wield.


And the whole witness and the universal witness of the Church agrees with Scripture.




Edited by - PotOnWheel on 05/30/2003 11:09:14 PM
Back to Top
 

Iconoclast
Registered Member


Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
 
   Posted 5/30/2003 7:47 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
POW
quote:
PoW: KNOWN BY FRUIT!!!

Iconoclast: I'm lost. Are you now saying that you are looking for results? For the "fruit" that is produced to determine whether something is blessed by the Spirit or not?



Icon points to the "results" that come "after." While for God's work, the "fruit" is simultaneously God's act in us AND the effect in us.

Iconoclast

So, if God is acting in the lives of a gay couple by blessing them and the effect is that they become closer to God and more loving toward others is this "fruit" that qualifies as simultaneously God's act in us AND the effect in us?

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
 

Iconoclast
Registered Member


Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
 
   Posted 5/30/2003 8:04 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
POW

Icon points to the "results" that come "after." While for God's work, the "fruit" is simultaneously God's act in us AND the effect in us.

...

Again, THE FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT IS THE GOAL ITELF, AND NOT THE MEANS TO AN END.

Iconoclast's paradigm is "the end (human love) that justifies the means (humanly-blessed homosexual "marriage").

Iconoclast

Your statements here seem contradictory to me. First you seem to suggest that I am only speaking of "results" and it is not ONLY about results. Then you say that the fruit of the spirit is the goal itself - in other words the "result" and "NOT THE MEANS TO AN END." Then you seem to suggest that "my" (strawman) paradigm is that "the end" (the results) justifies the means.

I must not be understanding you here.

POW

No matter which of the many testemonials that Icon has posted on this thread, none are records of God's Fruit.

Iconoclast

How do you know that "none are records of God's fruit"? If you say you know this because of scripture or because of Church authority or some such thing then how do you deal with the objection that Jesus told us that we "would know by their fruit."

POW

This does not mean that those in his stories are not Christians. And it does not mean that there is no fruitfulness in their lives. And it does not mean that there is no Christian love between the people described. MY POSTS HAVE NOT DENIED THIS. But homosexual union is sin. Most all of us have sin in our lives -- and Christians can sin and still be Christians, and have the Spirit working otherwise in their lives. (But some humans overcome sin.) And sin is sin.

Iconoclast

Here you say that the fruit itself is not bad but the union is still sin. Shouldn't we know whether it is really sin or not by the fruit that is produced? You seem to already know somehow that gay union is sin but I still don't understand how it is that you claim to know this.

POW

And, so, most importantly...

The Fruit of the Spirit does not require sin as a crutch. The Spirit of God does not require compromise to work redemption and transfiguration in our lives. And God is not powerless in the face of our weaknesses. The ONLY limitation is our own willingness.

Iconoclast

If the Spirit of God does not require compromise then why does the Church allow divorce and remarriage?

POW

And those who counsel others to dance with sin need to be examined carefully in the words they speak, and the influence they wield.

And the whole witness and the universal witness of the Church agrees with Scripture.

Iconoclast

But doesn't the Church currently counsel others to "dance with sin" regarding divorce and remarriage? How is this okay but gay unions are not?

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 05/31/2003 01:06:10 AM
Back to Top
 

DLW
Registered Member


Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
 
   Posted 6/3/2003 1:36 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
I believe I counselled Pow and Icon to give their differences on this topic a rest, long before Boyd came to the same conclusion.

I am going to give my own responses to Boyd's questions...

1. How certain are you that the New Testament is infallible in its ethical teachings?

DLW: The NT rightly doesn't exhaustively consider every ethical situation we can find ourselves in(This includes constitutional homosexuality!). As such, we must exegete passages to inform our own ethical deliberations. Thus, the NT cannot provide definitive answers to the problems of orders, both secular and ecclesiastical.

2. How certain are you that the New Testament teaches that all forms of homosexuality are wrong? How certain are you of the original meaning of Romans 1, of the phrase arsen koiti and the term malakoi?

DLW:I don't think the NT writers had the concept of homosexuality that is so prevalent today. As such, the need for exegesis of the teachings it does have on human sexuality.

3. How certain are you that the Bible’s teaching on homosexuality (see #1) is transcultural rather than cultural (as with women’s braided hair, jewlery, etc…)?

DLW:Human sexuality, as opposed to the objects/behaviors we use to signal information about ourselves, is transcultural. We are all bestowed with it and are inculcated with habits regarding it. Much of the cultural teachings, like the proscription against women having short hair, can be exegeted as saying don't send wrong signals about your sexuality.

4. How certain are you that the Church's traditional teaching on gay unions (or ethical teaching in general) is binding to all people at all times?
DLW:I consider Church tradition to be necessarily fallible, but inexorably essential in how we obey God's commandment to establish God's kingdom. A good portion of its fallibility rests on the imperfectness of our knowledge. It is our imperfect knowledge regarding the nature of human homosexuality that makes me part with aspects of the Church's traditional teaching on gay unions. However, I still am opposed to anal intercourse and bisexual unions, since these are often naturally harmful, reasonably may fall under the homosexual acts proscribed by the Bible, and bisexuals do have a choice.

5. How certain are you that at least some gay people could not help but be that way and cannot help but be that way?

DLW:Praxis has shown that constitutional homosexuals can change only under extraordinary circumstances that require a lot of self-motivation and external support. I think we should provide that external support, but leave it to them to decide what is God's will for their life and primarily just encourage holiness.

6. How certain are you that gay unions you’ve experienced exhibit a love blessed by God?

DLW:The gay unions I have experienced have not been by Christians. They have been decidedly libertarian and have viewed sex as a mutually benefitting/enjoyable exercise between consenting adults, not unlike a business relationship. I am opposed to this view and believe the gay-rights activists community needs to have the political oxygen taken away from it, so that they cannot insinuate the normative presupposition that there is nothing wrong with this form of lifestyle to the general public.

7. How certain are you that prohibiting life-long gay unions is the best option in all circumstances? How certain are you that allowing life-long committed unions is sometimes the best option?

DLW:Conditional on both partners being constitutional homosexuals, committed to the Christian Ideal of Marriage in all other respects, I believe it may be wise to accept within the Church life-long gay unions. However, in much of the gay-community, I would be surprised if such unions tended to happen with a very high frequency.

8. How certain are you that the way you balance options 1-6 is compelling enough to affirm that all believers should adopt it?

DLW:I don't think my answers to the Ecclesiastical Problem of Order are definite and, in some of their concrete suggestions, they can be subject to disagreement.

As a believer in the Priesthood of the Believers, my notion of the role of the intellectual is to guide discussion on praxis by laying out the relevant facts and alternatives for others and then, hopefully, letting them all help to sort out what specific responses to the ecclesiastical problem of order re:Homosexuality should be.

I anticipate this being a source of conflict and division ecclesiastically and politically in the future. In the US, religious differences have historically been used to reinforce political differences. Since Abortion is dying down as a hot-topic, homosexuality will likely become more prominent, as also may be how the US relates to the Middle East.

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.

Edited by - DLW on 06/04/2003 11:27:57 AM
Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 6/3/2003 6:27 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:
DLW

I believe I counselled Pow and Icon to give their differences on this topic a rest, long before Boyd came to the same conclusion.


That's patronizing of you, DLW. (A trend, along with wanting to rename threads? ) Fine. Everyone gets to promote what they think is important. BUT....

But. What I had to add, that was not only different from what you wanted to see here, but was also something not adequately layed out, was not yet given space. So...who would you be to say that others should not post?

But that posted, I rested.


Icon, you had a few questions. The last does not need treatment if you understand the answer to all the others. And all the others would not have been asked if you had understood what I wrote. But it is either foreign to how you think about the Christian faith, or it is just not what you want to hear. Or, perhaps if you read it one more time, it will catch. Lets try?

I'll post in the next.

PoW
Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 6/3/2003 7:00 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Icon, your last question is one that you have repeated many times. You want to know why anyone can look at the answer to the "what now" question regarding remarried people as different from the "what now" question regarding homosexually-oriented people. I think that is a fare question, and the reason I've posted what I did in the last several posts is that I wanted to give a SERIOUS answer. That I did. But you didn't understand the answer -- therefore it is impossible for you to apply what you do not understand to the comparision you asked about. I think that I'm with you up to this point, and you with me.

But the quick answer to your question regarding the difference is that something ELSE is manifested differently in these two instances. Can you understand that, as an idea?

And in reading my posts you repeat the same misreading over and over again. So I'll try to address the difference between how you are reading it and how I wrote it. OK?


1.

quote:
POW

Icon points to the "results" that come "after." While for God's work, the "fruit" is simultaneously God's act in us AND the effect in us.

Iconoclast

So, if God is acting in the lives of a gay couple by blessing them and the effect is that they become closer to God and more loving toward others is this "fruit" that qualifies as simultaneously God's act in us AND the effect in us?


You ask: acting in the lives ... is this "fruit" that qualifies...

Answer: No, this is not an example of self-control. You MAY remember several posts in this thread (You can do a wordsearch of the thread.) that treated this topic. Marriage, which is only between a man and a woman has the potential for manifesting this self-control; but it also does not always. It is up to the married couple. In the case of the "gay" persons abstaining is the route of "self-control." Again, to understand what I'm saying you have to go back to those posts. DON'T APPLY JUST WHAT COMES TO YOUR MIND THAT YOU HABITUALLY THINK OF AS "SELF CONTROL" BECAUSE THAT WON'T BE WHAT MY POST MEANS.


2.

quote:
POW

Icon points to the "results" that come "after." While for God's work, the "fruit" is simultaneously God's act in us AND the effect in us.

...

Again, THE FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT IS THE GOAL ITELF, AND NOT THE MEANS TO AN END.

Iconoclast's paradigm is "the end (human love) that justifies the means (humanly-blessed homosexual "marriage").

Iconoclast

Your statements here seem contradictory to me. First you seem to suggest that I am only speaking of "results" and it is not ONLY about results. Then you say that the fruit of the spirit is the goal itself - in other words the "result" and "NOT THE MEANS TO AN END." Then you seem to suggest that "my" (strawman) paradigm is that "the end" (the results) justifies the means.

I must not be understanding you here.



Answer: You have to read "'results' that come 'after.'" and "GOAL ITELF, AND NOT THE MEANS TO AN END" and see the difference.

The "self-control" of the Spirit (cited in a scripture passage quoted with many others of similar message in this thread) produces inward change, and is accomplished by the Spirit working in and with us. The "goal" is that inward change. It is not the civil behaviors. The good behavior naturally flows from the inner change. It is NOT the "'results' that come 'after'" but the "goal" that I'm after here. That goal is of a qualitatively different sort that the "results" that are illustrated in stories that DLW had about persons being less tempted.


3.


quote:
POW

This does not mean that those in his stories are not Christians. And it does not mean that there is no fruitfulness in their lives. And it does not mean that there is no Christian love between the people described. MY POSTS HAVE NOT DENIED THIS. But homosexual union is sin. Most all of us have sin in our lives -- and Christians can sin and still be Christians, and have the Spirit working otherwise in their lives. (But some humans overcome sin.) And sin is sin.

Iconoclast

Here you say that the fruit itself is not bad but the union is still sin. Shouldn't we know whether it is really sin or not by the fruit that is produced? You seem to already know somehow that gay union is sin but I still don't understand how it is that you claim to know this.


You still had it wrong (in reading what I was saying, and saying again...) again. I hope you are with me by now.


Icon: Here you say that the fruit itself is not bad but the union is still sin.

PoW: No. That's not what I'm saying. You switch result and goal, and here you switch fruit and result. (Read St. Basil the Great.) I do say, though, that OTHER manifestations (besides selfcontrol that obviously is negated in homosexual acts) may well be part of their Christian experience. As I say:

    Most all of us have sin in our lives -- and Christians can sin and still be Christians, and have the Spirit working otherwise in their lives. (But some humans overcome sin.)



4.

quote:
POW

And, so, most importantly...

The Fruit of the Spirit does not require sin as a crutch. The Spirit of God does not require compromise to work redemption and transfiguration in our lives. And God is not powerless in the face of our weaknesses. The ONLY limitation is our own willingness.

Iconoclast

If the Spirit of God does not require compromise then why does the Church allow divorce and remarriage?



Answer: Now we are back to this. All I know is that remarriage is not as blessed as first marriages are. (Referring to what developes inwardly, intrinsicly, as when a plant grows; but it does not refer to external, juridical notions, as how a drawing made of a plant is different in nature from a plant doing its own growing--the first is artificial and the second intrinsic.) And marriage, by its nature, always involves a monastic-like sacrifice as each gender goes to the cross in deferring their nature to the unity of the whole human nature--which is "male and female." Homosexual unions are plainly not the same sort of nature. And dispite that words can be written saying that individuals make "some kind of" sacrifices, etc. it is STILL not the same kind of thing.

I hope that you understood what I was saying Icon.

Bye, and take care.

PoW
Back to Top
 

DLW
Registered Member


Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
 
   Posted 6/4/2003 6:25 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Apologies for my patronizing, I didn't really follow how the thread developed and so it was presumptuous of me to assume nothing had come of it.

YOu know, you are often really quite difficult to understand. Your definition of self-control seems derivative from the traditions of Eastern Catholic church. I think Ike and I, both don't accept that tradition as authoritative.

Anyways, did you respond to Boyd's questions? It would be nice if you did, succinctly, so we could then have the comparison of all three of our point of views...
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
 

John Earp
Registered Member


Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
 
   Posted 6/4/2003 7:37 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Here's how I answer GB's questions:

1. How certain are you that the New Testament is infallible in its ethical teachings?

Absolutely 100%, so long as we realize that some things are obviously cultural.

2. How certain are you that the New Testament teaches that all forms of homosexuality are wrong? How certain are you of the original meaning of Romans 1, of the phrase arsen koiti and the term malakoi?

I disagree with the idea of homosexual "orientation." I find the biblical evidence undeniable that homosexual ACTS are always sinful.

3. How certain are you that the Bible’s teaching on homosexuality (see #1) is transcultural rather than cultural (as with women’s braided hair, jewlery, etc…)?

Romans 1 seems to clearly speak of all mankind, not just individual cultures.

4. How certain are you that the Church's traditional teaching on gay unions (or ethical teaching in general) is binding to all people at all times?

As I don't agree with the idea of "orientation", and I don't see a problem with two individuals of the same sex living together celibate, I really don't see the point in "homosexual unions," besides a presumptuous attempt to sanction homosexual acts.

5. How certain are you that at least some gay people could not help but be that way and cannot help but be that way?

Well, I can certainly see how a Calvinist might think that way. Not being a Calvinist, I don't believe in constitutional sinfulness. That said, I've known personally of individuals being set free from this ingrained habit.

6. How certain are you that gay unions you’ve experienced exhibit a love blessed by God?

Does not apply. As far as I know I've never "experienced" a gay union. (Thank God).

7. How certain are you that prohibiting life-long gay unions is the best option in all circumstances? How certain are you that allowing life-long committed unions is sometimes the best option?

Prohibiting homosexual acts is morally equivalent to prohibiting lying, cheating, stealing, etc.

8. How certain are you that the way you balance options 1-6 is compelling enough to affirm that all believers should adopt it?

With today's moral relativism and the seeming overwhelming desire pervasive in our culture today to not ever offend anybody, I have no illusions whatsoever that professing believers in Christ will adopt what I see as the biblical prohibition against sodomy. However, I do think that my position is the majority opinion among conservative Christians. Let each one be convinced in his own mind.




"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.

revivaltheology.net
Back to Top
 

DLW
Registered Member


Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
 
   Posted 6/4/2003 8:02 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
John, I highly urge you to look into the endocrinological explanation for why some people would be constitutional homosexuals. This is a reposting of n email I received from my High-School Biology teacher. He had a heart-attack earlier this Spring, but miraculously has not endured any long-term damage to his heart. He suggests some important scientific work regarding homosexuality that I think it would be more constructive for the link to dig up(as opposed to having more personal testimonies).

I believe Dr. John Money is still at Johns Hopkins. He strongly advocated
that sexual orientation was very plastic and could be shaped to about
whatever one wanted during the first six or so years of life. HE WAS WAY
OFF BASE. Nova did a program within the last few years about a tragic case
that he was involved with, a case where a couple had twin boys, and during
circumcising one of them, most of the penis was accidentally amputated.
Money advocated that he be surgically transformed into a female, as sexual
orientation of a female would develop if the child was raised as a girl.
Dr. Diamond (I believe he is still at the University of Hawaii) strongly
disputed Money's ideas, believing that sexual orientation was the product of
the influence of fetal hormones, and sexual orientation was more or less
hard wired in prior to birth.

I forget what Diamond's first name is.

Fascinating is the work of Dr. Margaret Imperato McGinley of Cornell
University. I think I spelled her last two names correctly. She did work
on a rare genetic condition called 5-alpha reductase deficiency syndrome. I
do not know how to get Greek characters on email messages. This is a
condition in which children are born looking exactly like females, but when
puberty hits, the labia fuse to form a scrotum, the undescended testes
descend into them, the clitoris enlarges to become a hypospadic penis (one
with only a groove down it, as the labia minora never grew over it to form
the urethra and foreskin of the penis. This condition is found in a few
areas in the Dominican Republic. Money challenged McGinley's findings as
they so radically contradicted his hypothesis. McGinley found about 18 of
these cases where none had been in the family before. They had been raised
unambiguously as girls. Then at 12 or 13 they became boys. According to
Money they should have had an adult sexual interest in males. While one was
homosexual and one a transsexual who had moved to New York, the rest had
married women or were living with women outside of wedlock, but clearly of a
heterosexual orientation. The hormones that are important in switching all
fetuses from a female into a male are basically two in number. One is
testosterone and the other is di-hydrotestosterone. These individuals in
the Dominican Republic had the one, but lacked the enzyme needed to change
it into the other. They had the enzyme that converts the brain from the
female pattern into the male pattern, but not the form that converts the
gonads, the genital tubercil (sp?), etc. to the male pattern. That is why,
even though they were raised as females and according to Money's learning
theory should have been interested in males, almost none of them showed any sxual interest in males. Their brains were already switched.

You will want to look up information about DES, di-ethyl silbesterone (and I now I slaughtered the last word--just look for it as DES). This chemical was given to many pregnant women who were diabetics in the late 40s to early 50s, maybe later. Diabetic women have a far greater tendency to miscarry than do non-diabetic women who are pregnant. In the 1970s, I believe it was, doctors made a disturbing discovery. Females born to women who had taken DES were coming down with one type of cervical cancer at about age 20 in alarming numbers. As you know, cervical cancer is not common at that age. So these females became the object of much medical curiosity. One of the things discovered along the way was that these women had an incidence of Lesbianism that was about six times greater than that found in the general population. DES is a chemical that has much in common with male hormones, testosterone, I believe. That they would have an elevated incidence of attraction to females, therefore, would make sense.

Next turn to research on Turner's Syndrome. These are females who have only one X chromosome and no second sex chromosome. The have 45 chromosomes per cell. They are X0. These females are sterile, but are extremely maternal. They make excellent adoptive mothers. Their IQ is normal, though they do have poor spacial abilities. You would not want them as a catcher on a softball team, nor would you want them to pilot the plane you are in. They may not be able to get the plane to the runway. Curiously enough, no cases of Lesbianism have (or I should say "had" as I am not up to date anymore) ever been found in them. And why would that be? They have no gonads. Both sexes produce some of the sex hormones of the other sex. But with Turner's syndrome individuals you have as testosterone free a body as you can get, as I understand it.

Look for the work of Gunter Dorner. Both the "u" and the "o" have umlauts over them. He was an East German endocrinologist at Humboldt University who did a number of very interesting studies. I must get to bed now, so you will have to wait before I can send you any more.

But Dorner's work is worth finding. He had several studies that used
radically different approaches yet all supported a fetal endocrinological basis to sexual orientation.


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
 

DLW
Registered Member


Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
 
   Posted 6/4/2003 9:34 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:

Hmm, DLW, when they find the gene that makes serial killers what they are, I suppose they'll start saying that is okay as well. Anyone can change if they are willing to and want to do the will of God. Nice post John




Thanks Honorman for displaying how thoroughly you read my postings... .

No one is talking about constitutional homosexuals not being subject to the commands of the Bible and it isn't about genes, it is about our hormonal balances that develop while we are fetuses(which are correctable while we still are in the womb). Somethings we do not choose. We do not choose our sex. We do not choose, personally, our hormonal balances that develop while we are fetuses. We do choose whether to accept or reject the sexual codes we are taught as we grow up. My positions have reflected an effort to hold to the traditional Christian ethics regarding sexuality as much as possible in dealing with the homosexuality question. But to do that, I must come to terms with how much of homosexuality is not chosen. Although, significant aspects of the popular homosexual lifestyle undoubtedly is chosen.

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.

Edited by - DLW on 06/04/2003 2:53:30 PM
Back to Top
 

honorman
Registered Member


Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
 
   Posted 6/4/2003 11:27 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
I also find it interesting, DLW, that all the cases in these studies are extreme cases, where something extreme or out of the ordinary happened to those involved. Thats always what I base my belief systems on...

Back to Top
 

DLW
Registered Member


Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
 
   Posted 6/4/2003 11:40 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:

Hormones...now there's an excuse for all those women who abuse their children. I believe that was defense for a woman who killed her kid. There you go...
my hormones make me sin God...can I still get into heaven?
Genes, hormones, I think we should just flip a coin
Personally, I find the gene "excuse" more PC, but thats just me




sources? I gave you mine, now give me yours...

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
 
New Topic Post Reply Printable Version
548 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page :
 
   
Forum Information
Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 7:43 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