quote:

---

quote:

---

PoW,
let me preface my remarks by thanking you for the critical attention you have given to my postings. I appreciate that and am thankful that you brought up such helpful sources on marriage to force me to critically reexamine my suppositions regarding marriage.

I don't think this link need be a "bitch-fest".

As for my statement, that for the Church to accept the Constitutionality of Homosexuality in some cases and accept marriage between homosexuals as being hypothetical, it will be very difficult for us to communicate if we do not share some common ground. Do you accept the scientific facts I developed in my posting on the link on homosexuality? If so, it would be hard to call this sort of situation as hypothetical. It would be great if all homosexuals could just repent of their homosexuality and go and sin no more and quite a few do view it as a curse rather than an alternative lifestyle, but the best research science has to offer us has shown that this is unlikely. The problem of ecclesiastical order includes making judgment calls regarding which aspects of the sinfulness of the world around us do we take as given and which ones do we seek to change. So my point was to affirm that the simplest, clearest interpretation of the Bible is that Homosexuality is due to Sin, but that praxis, our study of nature, has shown that for some people they cannot change and so the sacrament of marriage may be adapted for them.

quote:

---

I notice the inferred definition of marriage in dlw's post. While compared to marriage, monogamous homosexual "marriages" are promoted for the cause of "lesser of two evils". Is that marriage? (???)

---

The lesser of two evils is an expression. It is not saying literally that the marriage is evil, but rather acknowledges that it is due to the pervasiveness of sin in this world that we have constitutional homosexuality.

quote:

---

The starkest, BIGGEST difference between any idea of monogamous homosexual "marriages" (that's sacrilege to use such words) and the sacrament of marriage as instituted by God is that the former can only imitate a contract, while the later is ontologically unique and God-spoken.

---

I.e., marriage by definition as a sacrament is between males and females. Let me share with you where I am coming from, I am a fallibist. I, unlike the RCC and ECC, do not elevate Church tradition to the level of Scripture. Traditions change over time and they change based on our increasing knowledge of the world around us. As such, the potential for us to learn more about our natural surroundings and our physiology makes it so that the previous understandings that underly how we set out our past traditions must necessary fallible. I hold out the constitutionality of homosexuality as one of those understandings.

I don't see how a marriage between constitutional homosexuals cannot also be sacramental? You dismiss this as a possibility right off the bat. I am not so sure.

....................
An aside: One has to have an idea of God growing from ignorance to greater wisdom to think that He got is wrong at the beginning and now has changed His mind. Vile thought.
....................

It is not God that got it wrong, but we the Church with our fallible answers to the Problem of Ecclesiastical order that got it wrong. What is especially wrong is to conflate one's groups answers to this problem with the will of God.

quote:

---

quote:

---

dlw

In all these cases, the fact that we have fallen from God's ideal is given, the question is whether, given our fallenness, remarriage may be the lesser of the two evils.

---

I want to suggest that time be spent with that definition. Is it sufficient? I'd question whether it is entirely right (this is me) to label a second marriage as an "evil." A "mercy", perhaps yes! From what I've read the second or third marriage ceremony liturgy DOES HAVE REPENTANCE imbedded in it. But the fact that just like first marriages it also "is completed by the Eucharist" (above) shows, I think, that this is not an evil, but a sacrament nonetheless.

---

That seems to be the witness of the Church through the centuries.

---

Once more, just an expression. I was not saying the remarriage was evil and could not be sacramental, but that it is sinful since it deviates from God's ideal for us.
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.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Thanks, DLW!

NOW, if you can pardon me, what is below might be blunt. I mean nothing personally regarding you. But looking at this, now that it is done, I really do "get to the point." I hope that you can recieve this as graciously.

PoW

================================================

quote:

---

DLW

PoW, let me preface my remarks by thanking you for the critical attention you have given to my postings. I appreciate that and am thankful that you brought up such helpful sources on marriage to force me to critically reexamine my suppositions regarding marriage.

---

DLW As for my statement, that for the Church to accept the Constitutionality of Homosexuality in some cases and accept marriage between homosexuals as being hypothetical,

PoW My chosing a word like hypothetical was almost pictorial. I wanted to spotlight the fact that the Church has not done what you said it might do. On the contrary, it has done something else.


DLW Do you accept the scientific facts I developed in my posting on the link on homosexuality?

PoW No details of how and to what degree homosexuality is developed (and as you point out stemming from the fall) bears on the matter of the Spirit's witness in Scritpure and in the living (not frozen) tradition of the Church (more on that later). The Church witnesses to what God has done in marriage. What you wrote above on marriage was a bit weak -- marriage is far more than an accomodation. To begin there in understanding it is to eventually fail. The quote on Orthodox doctrine of marriage above is worth another look. (In Orthodoxy, Holy Matrimony is not a contract; it is the mysterious or mystical union of a man and woman - in imitation of Christ and the Church - in the presence of "the whole People of God" through her bishop or his presbyter.)


DLW so, it would be hard to call this sort of situation as hypothetical.

PoW The situation you describe is obviously not hypothetical. But an abandonment of the core truth of what God instituted in marriage, which pre-dates the fall and is--in its potential--a sacramental perticipation in the quality that post-dates the pleroma of the New Life is purely hypothetical on your part. It is an impossibility in its nature.


DLW It would be great if all homosexuals could just repent of their homosexuality and go and sin no more and quite a few do view it as a curse rather than an alternative lifestyle, but the best research science has to offer us has shown that this is unlikely.

PoW WHAT IS UNLIKELY? That the Spirit, when cooperated with by the Christian under the nurture of the Church can overcome sin? Where does it say THAT in scripture?

Besides, its irrelevancy lies in the fact that ALL sins get repeated by many, many Christians. Homosexual believers who repent repeatedly along with the rest of us repeat sin/repenters must be embraced... as we ALL walk the road towards calvary and on to the open grave.

It the "live-style" a curse? It's a den of vipers. Such a "life style" should be run from. But is the condition a curse? Truely yes -- ONE OF MANY. We ALL suffer from the EFFECTS of original sin.


DLW The problem of ecclesiastical order includes making judgment calls regarding which aspects of the sinfulness of the world around us do we take as given and which ones do we seek to change.

PoW Now I'm going to make you pause. There are many IDEAS about Ecclesiology and "ecclesiastical order." The RCC, due to its adoption of the Filoque is heavily "Christocentric. (The Filoque subserves the Spirit to Christ, and not just to the Fathe as the sole source of the Trinity.) As a result you have the "Pope." Organizational structure is legitimized as telling the Spirit what to do. (Read Met. John Zizioulas on "Pneumatologically conditioned Christology" as the Biblical view of Ecclessiology.)

It seems to me, DLW, that you are about to put yourself and any others who join you in the papal seat, to choose by yourselves what is right based on what you yourselves see at one moment and think about it at one moment. Hypocritical, it seems.

"Ecclessiology," as the work of the Spirit in constituting Christ in the Church (its definition) means that the Spirit is at work EVERYWHERE AND AT ALL TIMES. True diversity results. But True truth also.

Your proposition is merely hypothetical. Unless you can call an Eccumenical Council, and the result is a cannonical change.

DON'T MAKE THE MISTAKE OF VIEWING CONCILIAR TRUTH AS JUST A SERIES OF EXTRA-SCRITPURE PROOF-TEXTS. ACTUALLY "CANON" MEANS THE TRUTH IN SCRIPTURE, AND NOT JUST THE PAGES THEMSELVES! DON'T READ CATHOLICITY WITH PROTESTANT EYES.


DLW So my point was to affirm that the simplest, clearest interpretation of the Bible is that Homosexuality is due to Sin, but that praxis, our study of nature, has shown that for some people they cannot change and so the sacrament of marriage may be adapted for them.

PoW AS TO:

b>"Homosexuality is due to Sin."

YES.

"For some people they cannot change..."

That may be; but it is irrelevant. Moreso, it is FALSE. The Spirit does change us -- the Bible says so. But don't look for a "former homosexual to change in the direction of a non-homosexual. Look instead for them to change in a straight line towards what they will be "when He appears." That's what I think. And I get that idea both from the Bible and my walk with Jesus.


DLW "for some people they cannot change ... so the sacrament of marriage may be adapted for them."

PoW NOT SUFFICIENT. MORE IS NEEDED. SOMEONE HAS TO DIE ON THE CROSS. SOMEONE WITHOUT SIN HAS TO ASSUME AS HIS OWN FLESH THE FALLEN HUMANITY OF US ALL, AND BY THE DIVINITY OF HIS PERSON DIVINIZE HUMANITY. AND THEN THE SPIRIT HAS TO BE THE PATH FOR THAT "NEW LIFE" TO BE SHARED WITH US.

Anything else is just putting bandaids on cancer.


.


DLW I, unlike the RCC and ECC, do not elevate Church tradition to the level of Scripture.

PoW But you do, don't you, attempt to "read" tradition as if it were scripture. "HOLY TRADITION" is a living thing. (As per above) There can always be another Eccumenical Council, and more cannons.


DLW Traditions change over time and they change based on our increasing knowledge of the world around us.

PoW I hope that THAT is not the only thing that Holy Tradition is about. I hope that Christ sent His Spirit, and did not only leave us to our own rational divics and fortuitous (after the Eutruscan god Fortuna) occurances of "change" and noticible things in the world around us.

Again, the very NATURE of Marriage, that God SPOKE it into being by his WORD has not changed!


DLW ...the potential for us to learn more about our natural surroundings and our physiology makes it so that the previous understandings that underly how we set out our past traditions must necessary fallible.

PoW A "Humanist" with a belief in the power and veracity of Rationalism would say the same thing. Join the French Enlightenment! (Get what I'm saying?)


DLW I hold out the constitutionality of homosexuality as one of those understandings.

PoW Carefully consider what I'm going to say. THIS IS SOLELY BASED ON YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF A CONJUNCTION OF YOUR "FACTS" AND YOUR HAVING (seemingly) ACCEPTED RATIONALISM AS MEANS AND HUMANISM AS SUBSTANCE.


.

DLW I don't see how a marriage between constitutional homosexuals cannot also be sacramental? You dismiss this as a possibility right off the bat. I am not so sure.

PoW FIRST YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS SACRAMENTAL ABOUT MARRIAGE. MOST PROTESTANT CHURCHES ONLY RECOGNIZE TWO SACRAMENTS: COMMUNION AND BAPTISM -- AND THEN TO VARYING DEGREES.

CAN "SIN" BE SACRAMENTAL? (no way, no way, no way, no way, )

CAN HOMOSEXUALS PRACTICE CHRISTIAN LOVE? SURE. SAME AS HABITUAL HOTHEADS. REPENTANCE IS A "REBAPTISM." TAKING OUT THE GARBAGE CLEANES THE KITCHEN AND GETS US READY FOR SERVICE AND CHRISTIAN LOFE. ALL OF US.

.

DLW It is not God that got it wrong, but we the Church with our fallible answers to the Problem of Ecclesiastical order that got it wrong. What is especially wrong is to conflate one's groups answers to this problem with the will of God.

PoW BUT THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE DOING HERE: "conflating your answers to this problem with the will of God."


AND IF THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE DOING, THEN "NO," YOU REALLY DO, DEEP DOWN, FEEL THAT "GOD THE SPIRIT GOT IT WRONG."



Edited by - PotOnWheel on 04/29/2003 1:00:18 PM


---

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

DLW As for my statement, that for the Church to accept the Constitutionality of Homosexuality in some cases and accept marriage between homosexuals as being hypothetical,

PoW My chosing a word like hypothetical was almost pictorial. I wanted to spotlight the fact that the Church has not done what you said it might do. On the contrary, it has done something else.

---

The ecclesiastical governance of the Church is somewhat fragmented and in some areas it has and others it hasn't, unless you are positing that the Church doesn't include those churches that have chosen to accept homosexual marriages. That is something that we will not resolve here.

quote:

---

DLW Do you accept the scientific facts I developed in my posting on the link on homosexuality?

PoW No details of how and to what degree homosexuality is developed (and as you point out stemming from the fall) bears on the matter of the Spirit's witness in Scritpure and in the living (not frozen) tradition of the Church (more on that later). The Church witnesses to what God has done in marriage. What you wrote above on marriage was a bit weak -- marriage is far more than an accomodation. To begin there in understanding it is to eventually fail. The quote on Orthodox doctrine of marriage above is worth another look. (In Orthodoxy, Holy Matrimony is not a contract; it is the mysterious or mystical union of a man and woman - in imitation of Christ and the Church - in the presence of "the whole People of God" through her bishop or his presbyter.)

---

No marriage is not a contract and should not be a contract. Though, many treat it as such. However, there are aspects of marriage that has parallels with contracts. The above statement does seem to forbid there being a mystical union between homosexuals, despite the fact I believe as pointed out earlier our sexualities will not exist in heaven and as such cannot comprise the core of our beings today. You also insist that this is done through "the Spirit's witness in Scritpure". I.e., God is on my side. I think it is quite hard to debate with someone who maintains this premise. Bear in mind, "the living (not frozen) tradition of the Church" did include much anti-semitism for a good portion of its history and so we cannot presuppose that everything in it reflects directly the Spirit's witness.

quote:

---

DLW so, it would be hard to call this sort of situation as hypothetical.

PoW The situation you describe is obviously not hypothetical. But an abandonment of the core truth of what God instituted in marriage, which pre-dates the fall and is--in its potential--a sacramental perticipation in the quality that post-dates the pleroma of the New Life is purely hypothetical on your part. It is an impossibility in its nature.

---

What is a pleroma??? That marriage was meant to be sacramental and that males and females were created for each other is a core truth. That its earthly manifestation has continuously fallen from this ideal is also true(As an economist, I can testify that it has been in fact very much an economic institution). Anyways, I don't see why allowing for Constitutional Homosexual marriages in any way abandons these core truths.

quote:

---

DLW It would be great if all homosexuals could just repent of their homosexuality and go and sin no more and quite a few do view it as a curse rather than an alternative lifestyle, but the best research science has to offer us has shown that this is unlikely.

PoW WHAT IS UNLIKELY? That the Spirit, when cooperated with by the Christian under the nurture of the Church can overcome sin? Where does it say THAT in scripture?

---

Within the letters of Paul, he does treat the question of whether or not certain weaknesses of Church members(such as do we eat Temple meat?) as given or as subject to being overcome. Often time, there is a fair amount of ambiguity in what he writes on these issues(initially he says we shouldn't so those who are weak will not be tempted/tested in their faith. Then, he says that since there are no spirits in the temple or they have no power over us, that there shouldn't be any problems.). The same can be said for his writings on slavery. Obviously, the Christians had been discussing whether or not they should try to put an end to this evil institution, but Paul, writing under the non-democratic Roman Empire, argues that trying to end slavery is not as important as spreading the gospel. So he isn't saying that slavery is right, but that of the evils in the world it isn't likely to be changed significantly and the Church's energies would be better spent focusing along other lines.

My point is that the Christian Church has, inevitably as part of the Ecclesiastical Problem of Order, taken certain sinful aspects of the world as given in its decision to focus its ministries on other aspects. I am saying that the Constitutional nature of homosexuality is one of those aspects that should, for the most part, be taken as given.

quote:

---

Besides, its irrelevancy lies in the fact that ALL sins get repeated by many, many Christians. Homosexual believers who repent repeatedly along with the rest of us repeat sin/repenters must be embraced... as we ALL walk the road towards calvary and on to the open grave.

It the "live-style" a curse? It's a den of vipers. Such a "life style" should be run from. But is the condition a curse? Truely yes -- ONE OF MANY. We ALL suffer from the EFFECTS of original sin.

---

And, did I imply we should confer any blessing on the "life-styles" of homosexuals today, just as with the flagrant heterosexuality/ sexual profligacy of so many today? No.

quote:

---

DLW The problem of ecclesiastical order includes making judgment calls regarding which aspects of the sinfulness of the world around us do we take as given and which ones do we seek to change.

PoW Now I'm going to make you pause. There are many IDEAS about Ecclesiology and "ecclesiastical order." The RCC, due to its adoption of the Filoque is heavily "Christocentric. (The Filoque subserves the Spirit to Christ, and not just to the Fathe as the sole source of the Trinity.) As a result you have the "Pope." Organizational structure is legitimized as telling the Spirit what to do. (Read Met. John Zizioulas on "Pneumatologically conditioned Christology" as the Biblical view of Ecclessiology.)

It seems to me, DLW, that you are about to put yourself and any others who join you in the papal seat, to choose by yourselves what is right based on what you yourselves see at one moment and think about it at one moment. Hypocritical, it seems.

---

Please forgive me, in that as I come from a Protestant tradition, I lack the steepedness in a tradition of ecclesiology. This is something I admire about the RCC. However, I think it incorrect to say that I am choosing for myself what is right, based on what I see at this moment. I think it is inaccurate to say that because the traditions of my denomination that I was raised in do not have a direct lineage going back to Peter that they are of no value(although, undoubtedly they would benefit much with a more fuller interaction with Christian history and what-not.). So I am operating within tradition and I do not claim that my judgments are infallible, but rather that I am participating in the reformation of the ecclesiastical problem of order regarding homosexuality. If you read my other link's posting, you would see that I have given quite a bit of thought to this over an extended period of time, so I think it is rather uncharitable for you to characterize my positions as what I happen to think at this moment. Although, I am open to changing my views in some respects.

quote:

---

"Ecclessiology," as the work of the Spirit in constituting Christ in the Church (its definition) means that the Spirit is at work EVERYWHERE AND AT ALL TIMES. True diversity results. But True truth also.

Your proposition is merely hypothetical. Unless you can call an Eccumenical Council, and the result is a cannonical change.

DON'T MAKE THE MISTAKE OF VIEWING CONCILIAR TRUTH AS JUST A SERIES OF EXTRA-SCRITPURE PROOF-TEXTS. ACTUALLY "CANON" MEANS THE TRUTH IN SCRIPTURE, AND NOT JUST THE PAGES THEMSELVES! DON'T READ CATHOLICITY WITH PROTESTANT EYES.

---

Are we not to discuss these things prior to such a council? I have no problems with such a council, but some of your previous statements make me find it hard to believe that we will be in unison on this matter, since our views do differ in some serious ways.

quote:

---

"For some people they cannot change..."

That may be; but it is irrelevant. Moreso, it is FALSE. The Spirit does change us -- the Bible says so. But don't look for a "former homosexual to change in the direction of a non-homosexual. Look instead for them to change in a straight line towards what they will be "when He appears." That's what I think. And I get that idea both from the Bible and my walk with Jesus.

---

I must respectfully disagree. Sometimes there are thorns in our flesh that we cannot expect to go away. My walk and the habits that I have accumulated in my training as a social scientist make it seem to me that some of our past teachings regarding homosexuality was misguided.

quote:

---

DLW "for some people they cannot change ... so the sacrament of marriage may be adapted for them."

PoW NOT SUFFICIENT. MORE IS NEEDED. SOMEONE HAS TO DIE ON THE CROSS. SOMEONE WITHOUT SIN HAS TO ASSUME AS HIS OWN FLESH THE FALLEN HUMANITY OF US ALL, AND BY THE DIVINITY OF HIS PERSON DIVINIZE HUMANITY. AND THEN THE SPIRIT HAS TO BE THE PATH FOR THAT "NEW LIFE" TO BE SHARED WITH US.

---

I agree that all of this is pointless without the sacrifice of Christ, but we are not in disagreement concerning this. And the fact that we ultimately do need to surrender our sinfulness at the foot of the cross does not imply that we do not still face the problems of ecclesiastical order.

quote:

---

DLW I, unlike the RCC and ECC, do not elevate Church tradition to the level of Scripture.

PoW But you do, don't you, attempt to "read" tradition as if it were scripture. "HOLY TRADITION" is a living thing. (As per above) There can always be another Eccumenical Council, and more cannons.

---

Yes it must be living. I give it much weight and governance over my life, but I think that because sin has propagated itself throughout the leadership structure of Christianity, that it is hard to wait for unamity to be reached in another Ecumenical Council. I accept the freedom of different Church institutions to adapt their policies autonomously and seek to participate in how my denomination does so.

quote:

---

DLW Traditions change over time and they change based on our increasing knowledge of the world around us.

PoW I hope that THAT is not the only thing that Holy Tradition is about. I hope that Christ sent His Spirit, and did not only leave us to our own rational divics and fortuitous (after the Eutruscan god Fortuna) occurances of "change" and noticible things in the world around us.

Again, the very NATURE of Marriage, that God SPOKE it into being by his WORD has not changed!

---

The concrete manifestations of Marriage have changed and our understandings of how sexuality is formed(or deformed) has changed and we must take into account the best current state of knowledge in how we answer the problem of ecclesiastical order.

quote:

---

DLW ...the potential for us to learn more about our natural surroundings and our physiology makes it so that the previous understandings that underly how we set out our past traditions must necessary fallible.

PoW A "Humanist" with a belief in the power and veracity of Rationalism would say the same thing. Join the French Enlightenment! (Get what I'm saying?)

---

Humanism, which initially was a Christian movement, rose in reaction to the fallen nature of much ecclesiastical leadership regarding the problems of order. Unlike the French, I am not seeking to undermine the autonomy of ecclesiastical governance bodies. I am trying to provide prophetic witness that is meant to ensure their future relevance and avoid the vagaries of Europe regarding the Church.

quote:

---

DLW I hold out the constitutionality of homosexuality as one of those understandings.

PoW Carefully consider what I'm going to say. THIS IS SOLELY BASED ON YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF A CONJUNCTION OF YOUR "FACTS" AND YOUR HAVING (seemingly) ACCEPTED RATIONALISM AS MEANS AND HUMANISM AS SUBSTANCE.

---

It is a fallible judgement that does rest on my acceptance of facts(which as Alistair McGrath pointed out are, like powdered wigs, an invention of the 17th century. However, I am willing to make this leap of faith, since it has proven itself to be reliable in the past and an unwillingness to accept new facts by the Church in the past has led to much undermining of its credibility.

quote:

---

DLW I don't see how a marriage between constitutional homosexuals cannot also be sacramental? You dismiss this as a possibility right off the bat. I am not so sure.

PoW FIRST YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS SACRAMENTAL ABOUT MARRIAGE. MOST PROTESTANT CHURCHES ONLY RECOGNIZE TWO SACRAMENTS: COMMUNION AND BAPTISM -- AND THEN TO VARYING DEGREES.

CAN "SIN" BE SACRAMENTAL? (no way, no way, no way, no way, )

CAN HOMOSEXUALS PRACTICE CHRISTIAN LOVE? SURE. SAME AS HABITUAL HOTHEADS. REPENTANCE IS A "REBAPTISM." TAKING OUT THE GARBAGE CLEANES THE KITCHEN AND GETS US READY FOR SERVICE AND CHRISTIAN LOFE. ALL OF US.

---

Homosexuality may be due to sin, but why can't a Marriage still be sacramental? Can't homosexual partners remind each other of how much they have been forgiven for because of God's love on a daily basis? Won't this also serve to check the temptation to engage in a depraved lifestyle?

quote:

---

DLW It is not God that got it wrong, but we the Church with our fallible answers to the Problem of Ecclesiastical order that got it wrong. What is especially wrong is to conflate one's groups answers to this problem with the will of God.

PoW BUT THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE DOING HERE: "conflating your answers to this problem with the will of God."

AND IF THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE DOING, THEN "NO," YOU REALLY DO, DEEP DOWN, FEEL THAT "GOD THE SPIRIT GOT IT WRONG."

---

Clearly, in contending regarding what our answers to the Problem of Ecclesiastical Order should be, we will make rival claims regarding what should be done. The root problem here lies in our difficulty to agree as to what is the will of God. The Bible doesn't touch upon the potential constitutionality of homosexuality, because this issue wasn't dealt with directly by its authors.

As such, we must make parallels with similar issues and consider adapting our traditions carefully.

I'm sorry, but I doubt I will be able to go back and forth on this issue with you, since I do have professorial obligations that I need to attend to.

Hopefully, others will join in or we will all need to agree to disagree for the moment.
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.

---

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

DLW,

I'll try to get back to you, but I thought I'd leave these two things.


First:

quote:

---

DLW

I think it is rather uncharitable for you to characterize my positions as what I happen to think at this moment. Although, I am open to changing my views in some respects.

---

I wasn't speaking as the single issue of you and one thought; it was the overall trend of seeming to ignore, or not look for the Spirit to be at work all along, and nurturing witness to the kingdom -- whether that witness is sometimes almost underground at times or not. THAT is what I responded to.

The context was:

quote:

---

DLW The problem of ecclesiastical order includes making judgment calls regarding which aspects of the sinfulness of the world around us do we take as given and which ones do we seek to change.

PoW Now I'm going to make you pause. There are many IDEAS about Ecclesiology and "ecclesiastical order." The RCC, due to its adoption of the Filoque is heavily "Christocentric. (The Filoque subserves the Spirit to Christ, and not just to the Fathe as the sole source of the Trinity.) As a result you have the "Pope." Organizational structure is legitimized as telling the Spirit what to do. (Read Met. John Zizioulas on "Pneumatologically conditioned Christology" as the Biblical view of Ecclessiology.)

It seems to me, DLW, that you are about to put yourself and any others who join you in the papal seat, to choose by yourselves what is right based on what you yourselves see at one moment and think about it at one moment. Hypocritical, it seems.

---

I was critical of the Papal-brand of organizational structure. But seeing what seems to be unilateral decree of new rules on the issue discussed really did remind me of popes decrees. The alternative is the living tradition of the whole Church. That is not all defined in every way and at every time; but it is also not over defined either.

(But this is not the thread for that.)


Second:

So, What is your definition of the Church? Ours seem to be very different. You might take the time to look carefully at what I said that defines how I understand what the nature of the Church is. There is much you said that shows that you see it mreo as a human-based organization and instituion. Perhaps (buessing) that is why you also appear to present sin as a "structural problem." Much leaned that way in your presentation.


Edited by - PotOnWheel on 04/30/2003 10:57:07 PM

---

---

quote:

---

... In one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church ...

Church as a word means those called as a particular people to perform a particular task. The Christian Church is the assembly of God's chosen people called to keep his word and to do his will and his work in the world and in the heavenly kingdom.

(from www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Orthodox-Faith/Doctrine/Church.html)

---

THERE'S THE "WORK" PART.

D.L.W. was making -- in my reading -- a structural problem critique of the Chruch.

But the "work" part is important! "Keeping His word and doing His will", while not necessarily perfect in behavior, is necessarily constitutive of Christ's church.

NEXT IS THE "SPIRIT" PART.

quote:

---

One Church

The Church is one because God is one, and because Christ and the Holy Spirit are one. There can only be one Church and not many. And this one Church, because its unity depends on God, Christ, and the Spirit, may never be broken. Thus, according to Orthodox doctrine, the Church is indivisible; men may be in it or out of it, but they may not divide it.

---

I was making a point, that DLW seemed to be missing at the moment, that the Church is consititued out of those saved "in Christ" by the Spirit. The above quote does say that. But it goes even a step further in declaring that "the Church is indivisible." How offensive, or at least uncomfortable for those who relax in the notion that the "universal" (versus local) definition of the "church" gives everyone all the elbow room that they desire every time it is desire. (OK; maybe that is hyperbole. )

More from that Site is at www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Orthodox-Faith/Doctrine/Church.html)

-

DLW -- WHAT DIRECTION DID YOU HAVE IN MIND?

quote:

---

I focus on what I perceive as the humanly determined aspects of the Church, since these are open to reformation.

---

quote:

---

And in the eyes of Irenaeus, the Tradition was associated with that "genuine anointing of truth" (Against Heresies, Book 4, Chapter XXVI, paragraph 2), passed on from the Apostles, through the succession, to the bishops of the Church and through them to the presbyters. He did not see the teaching of the Apostles as unchanging examples, to be repeated over and over again word for word or even paraphrased, but as a living source of both life and inspiration. Tradition is to be found in the ongoing presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church, not just in the repeating and remembering of words. Thus, we see that the Tradition and its use in the Church is a charismatic, not an historical, matter.

http://www.antiochian.org/theology/what_is_the_basis_for_certainty_.htm

---

quote:

---

I carry a "Creation-Fall-Redemption-Office model in some of my thinking. Similar to that is the view I see in the EO where HOLINESS defines the boundaries (so to speak) of the Church. As per:

quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Holy Church

The Church is holy because God is holy, and because Christ and the Holy Spirit are holy. The holiness of the Church comes from God. The members of the Church are holy to the extent that they live in communion with God.

Within the earthly Church, people participate in God's holiness. Sin and error separate them from this divine holiness as it does from the divine unity. Thus, the earthly members and institutions of the Church cannot be identified as such with the Church as holy.

The faith and life of the Church on earth is expressed in its doctrines, sacraments, scriptures, services, and saints which maintain the Church's essential unity, and which can certainly be affirmed as "holy" because of God's presence and action in them.
-------------------------------------------------------------

---

quote:

---

DLW: What does this mean? Okay, so HOLINESS defines the boundaries of the Church, but who defines the boundaries of HOLINESS? In my experience, many Christians have an apolitical conception of holiness that focuses on right relations between individuals and God and excludes a duty to participate in the vagaries surrounding the problems of order(whether they secular or ecclesiastical.).

PoW: It seems like you didn't understand what I said. The second part of the paragraph above is territory which could be responded to with an observation denouncing "dualisms" (as Cal Seervelt or Nick Wolterstorff would.) But what I'd like to criticize is wher you focus the issue of Holiness on "who." Even saying "but who defines the boundaries of HOLINESS" seems askew. Because, here's my post that you are refering to:
...
As what I quoted says, "The members of the Church are holy to the extent that they live in communion with God." it seems obvious that it is nothing less than God who judges this.
Perhaps you might want to look into what Reformed academics have developed with regards to distinguishing between issues of "structure" versus issues of "direction." (ala Abraham Kuyper's Stone Lectures, which are online.)

---

I did remove the portion of the previous posting where I asked, "Who defines HOLINESS? In that, you were right I think I did misunderstand you. I believe that I am driven by anger over the history of the Christian Church. I think you are probably right. I am aware of Kuyper, but have not read that much of him directly, just second hand sources relating to economics/politics from John Tiemstra.

quote:

---

See where you say: "...many Christians have an apolitical conception of holiness that focuses on right relations between individuals and God and excludes a duty to participate in the vagaries surrounding the problems of order(whether they secular or ecclesiastical.)." Falsely "apolitical" concepts as you are refering to point to issues of "sphere sovereignty" and "sphere interdependence." (again, ala Kuyper) Reducing what really is an issue in the sphere of politics to an issue defined in another sphere, and judge it by the "norms" of that other sphere is an error of confusing created structures. An issue of a wrong requiring correction according to the norms of the sphere in which the wrong is being committed requires attention there, in that sphere. Other times, the requirements of a different sphere are inappropriately interjected into an area where structurally (not "Structuralism" here!) it does not belong creates the problem. A for instance is govrenment in education: educational responsibility is an extension of the task God gives parents. A college like Dordt in Iowa even developes the task of colleges in this capacity.

---

I am reading you. If I can restate what you are saying that I am saying above, maybe we can be sure we understand each other. I treat many ecclesiastical issues in the same way with similar language to how I would treat politics. You are saying that these spheres do have interdependences but are also autonomous. If I may guess the structure/direction dichotomy likely refers to the belief(which I share) that what we receive as the Church does reflect the workings of the Holy Spirit and is to be cherished, but that there is a need to continue to make some alterations so that the Church will be ready to go in new directions?

As for education, I agree that the way many public schools banish discussion of morals/ethics, topics usually discussed within the context of shared religious convictions, has helped the moral decline of the US. I was fortunate in that I had teachers that bucked the system and did discuss these issues in my public school. Although, their viewpoints were rather liberal. However, I ended up growing in my faith from having apologeticked with these viewpoints, thanks to the good job my parents had already done instilling me with Christian beliefs. So, I would disagree about the imperative for home-schooling(and that was part of your point, wasn't it?).

quote:

---

Point is, DLW, you seem to have seriously misread what I posted. Again, you said: "Okay, so HOLINESS defines the boundaries of the Church, but who defines the boundaries of HOLINESS?" What do you mean by "so HOLINESS defines the boundaries of the Church?" You also said: "I also affirm that the earthly manifestations are not the true Church." Reformed Christians would not concede this. They would call it "dualistic." Whereas God became incarnate, and sent His Spirit to the Church, should we be surprised when the physical Church IS the church too?

---

The last sentence here presumes that we know the physical Church is the Church too. I can't accept such certainty regarding our physical churches. It seems to imply we know already exactly what the Church should be doing and I think their is uncertainty in that regard.

My experience with Reformed churches has not supported the viewpoint that the physical Church is the Church. Historically, they have been in very tight ethnically homogenous communities(Clearly, this cannot reflect the Church). As I am an OVT, their theology has not been the end-all-be-all for Theology. In Michigan, the RCA church I attended was very "evangelical" and quite antagonistic to the Kuyperian views of the CRC church nearby(They were not involved at all in politics/helping the poor, except a sermon or so on Abortion, and spent all their funds on missions(nothing wrong with that, but the personal views on the pastor weighed heavily in on how the Church answered the problem of ecclesiastical order).) I went there because a friend of mine did and the sermons were great and the church was far more open to international students and much less ethnically Dutch-oriented. So while I disliked its focus on lets get everybody saved and ready for the second-coming, I did like other aspects, which weren't present at the CRC church nearby.

quote:

---

I opened the thread with a heading like this: The CHURCH as "work" and "Spirit"
Perhaps it is helpful for us to recognize and highlight the seemingly contradictory but vitally important present truth expressed in that statement I quoted. One paragraph said, "...the earthly members and institutions of the Church cannot be identified as such with the Church as holy.", but the next paragraph said, "The faith and life of the Church on earth is expressed in its doctrines, sacraments, scriptures, services, and saints which maintain the Church's essential unity, and which can certainly be affirmed as "holy" because of God's presence and action in them." Can we accept the responsibility to wrap our minds around the span of embracing both the realistic recognition that no "earthly members," and no earthly "insitutions" amount to 'holyChurch-ness.' Yet, we also have to responsibly recognize with mind and heart the realism that incarnate in earthly life are "sacraments, scriptures, services and saints."

---

For me, I think the same tension exists, though I describe it differently. My anger and affirmation of the fallibilism of much of ecclesiastical governance coincides with my apologeticking for the need for us and more of the world to give ecclesiastical institutions governance over how we live our lives. Not because they are always right on the important issues we face, but there is nothing unique to them regarding their past transgressions that would prevent the same from taking place within a "secular" institutions. And, generally-speaking, if you watch enough french films or have italian friends like me, you can see the seriousness of the consequences of the rejection of ecclesiastical institutions by the people of a nation.

quote:

---

Your area of academic responsibility is economics. You notice issues of power. But the Church isn't always the highest profile event. Sometimes it is an Abba Anthony in the dessert. Sometimes it is a "Fool for Christ" slapping the Czar across the face. Sometimes it is the fabric of Baptized social institutions in an occupied country like Greece, flowering with the Gospel and brotherly love for hundreds of years dispite lack of high-institution political autonomy. (I'd like to get the Dutch and the Greeks together to talk.)

---

I agree.

quote:

---

DLW, where you say "I blame the EO church for perhaps embracing HOLINESS a little too strongly in not providing prophetic witness against the corruption of the Russian Czar's gov't." I have to wonder whether that is a cheep shot. As my Russ sister-in-law says: Try suffering the kind of terrorism and persecution that Russia did for half as many decades and see how you fair. (They were underway with reforms through the Church when 1917 happened.) Before that they suffered Peter's imperial Westernization programs. ("Sphere soverignty problems," the Dutch Reformed would say.) I don't doubt the need for the reforms you are mentioning. But I completely fail to see how "holiness" led to that.

---

In my imperfect understanding, the EO requires unamity to make decisions. It has its institutions set up to prevent change. It also is and was subject to being captured by those who control the state. If holiness means for us to be one and in agreement but we are also subject to people joining the leadership of the church for other reasons than there having been "called", then this will help neutralize the Church's ability to be autonomous from the state. When it comes to politics, Christian unity on any particular issue will likely be tenuous.

quote:

---

The church is not a human invention or institution. But you said: "the importance of doctrines, sacraments, scriptures, services, and saints as holy due to how we can sense God's presence within them in how they maintain the Church's essential unity." That seems to say that the emphasis is on "how we can sense"; which means that the emphasis is on individualisms and subjectivity.

---

The emphasis is on how the Church has discovered/verified what serves to glorify God and advance the Kingodm of God. This is analogous to us putting the Bible together on the basis of not-some easily discernable rule, but the collective testimony of the Christian Community that the Holy Spirit had moved through the texts.
So I don't think it implies individualism. It does emphasize the dynamic role of the Church in the formation and renewal of its traditions.

quote:

---

Dogmatically, the sacraments of Word and Table are not mere subjectivities. One can fail to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit in the Word (You have to read this in the Catholic sence, and not your typical evangelical idea of this refering just to the preacher's sermon.) where the Epiclesis prayer asks the Holy Spirit to:

quote:

---

"Illumine our hearts, 0 Master who lovest mankind, with the pure light of Thy divine knowledge. Open the eyes of our mind to the understanding of Thy gospel teachings. Implant also in us the fear of Thy blessed commandments, that trampling down all carnal desires, we may enter upon a spiritual manner of living, both thinking and doing such things as are well-pleasing unto Thee..." (PRAYER BEFORE THE GOSPEL)

---

And those who unworthily partake of the Bread and Cup "eat and drink judgement onto themselves." (1 Cor. 11) The Liturgy says: "That to those who shall partake thereof they may be unto cleansing of soul, unto forgiveness of sins, unto communion of thy Holy Spirit, unto fulfillment of the kingdom of heaven, unto boldness toward thee, not unto judgment nor unto condemnation."


Again, we may be agreeing on a lot of things that aren't being said.

---

I think that part of the problem is that I am vague regarding how I conceive of the role of the Holy Spirit in the formation and reformation of the traditions of the Church. Inasmuch as I give a lot of focus to our failures in the past and ask, "why is today any different?" The question of "Where is God" is very relevant for me, in part, because I am working on a theology/philosophy paper I started writing in grad school. Among other things, the paper was supposed to show my academic god-father, Warren Samuels, an agnostic Jew, that one could incorporate his basic viewpoints into Christianity.

quote:

---

I think that your areas of interest ARE interesting;

quote:

---

An area of strong interest of mine is the longstanding debate on the appropriate relationship between the Church and State that was so prevalent throughout the Medieval Ages in Europe. In my view, this debate was a precursor of the ongoing economic debates regarding privatization and publicization. Who gets to make decisions, how should decision-making about the ways we will live our lives be distributed.

I blame the EO church for perhaps embracing HOLINESS a little too strongly in not providing prophetic witness against the corruption of the Russian Czar's gov't. This then led to its inability to make the reforms that were taking place elsewhere and the Russian Revolution and the rise of its Communism. You know the rest...

I could say the same for France. You should watch the film "Queen Margot" sometime for a vivid depiction of the St. Bartholomew Day's massacre. I have some french huguenot ancestry from my father's side. It is a very disturbing movie, but it helps to understand the development of religion in France, since it is portrayed as responsible for much division and blood-shed in France. My view is that this stems from the extent the RCC was in bed with the king of france.

---

An essay that takes the Frankish domination of the RCC to task (maybe over the top, and carrying historical shoulder-chips, but interesting!) is at http://www.romanity.org

CHARLEMAGNE'S LIE OF 794 AD, THE GREEK LATINS OF ALBA LONGA AND OF ROME, THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE LIE AND BALKANIZATION, by John S. Romanides
http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.21.en.the_ethnic_cleaning_of_roman_history.01.htm

Thanks for your response.

---

Thankyou for the link. I look forward to reading it in my preciously scarce free-time.

quote:

---

I do want to get back to this, though:

quote:

---

... In one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church ...

Church as a word means those called as a particular people to perform a particular task. The Christian Church is the assembly of God's chosen people called to keep his word and to do his will and his work in the world and in the heavenly kingdom.

(from http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Orthodox-Faith/Doctrine/Church.html)

---

THAT is where the double (but not dualistic) emphasis of "work" and "Spirit" come in.

Notice that what is being said is that the Church is "a particular people to perform a particular task." The author of Protestant Church Architecture says about the same thing as the Orthodox quote, this time you will enjoy that WORK is mentioned!: worship as basically work done in God's service.

quote:

---

Work has additional significance since the Hebrew viewed God as One Who works. Psalm 104 is an eloquent praise of God for His works which create nature and provide for His creatures:
"These all look to thee... (Psalm 104)

---

and

quote:

---

Man is placed in the world not simply as an autonomous worker in an indifferent universe but in a place where he acts as a servant of God. The Old Testament is particularly fond of referring to God's people as God's servants. "Ye servants of God, your Master proclaim," wrote Charles Wesley, echoing the language of the Old Testament. The character of a servant, of course, is that of someone who works for someone else. One serves God through one's treatment of his fellow servants, especially in labor which is beneficial to them.

The line between the work of worship and the work of earning a livelihood is a very fine distinction since both are part of man's proper service to God. The manner in which one treats his neighbor is directly a part of his relationship to God. A New Testament passage indicates, "As you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me" (Matt. 25:40). Work as service of God is by no -means limited to the work of worship. In the New Testament the same word is used for worship, acts of charity, and the work of the pagan civil authorities. All this work serves God in performing a beneficial service for mankind. Luther captured the same idea when he stated that all Christians. are priests to each other, "and every one by means of his own. work or office must benefit and serve every other." 14
14 "An Open Letter to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation," Works of Martin Luther (Philadelphia ed.; Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1943), II, p. 69.

Each member of society performs services that are beneficial-to the community and in so doing serves God.

There are several reasons why the special work of worship is necessary. In the first place there is an inevitability-about worship as man worships spontaneously out of joy and gladness. "To have a God," said Luther, "is simply to trust and believe in one with our whole heart." 15

---

AIN'T NO DUALISMS THERE!!!!!!!!

---

I'm sorry maybe you need to define for me what you mean by dualism?
From what I am reading from you, Work and Spirit are not dualistic and much of what I speak about regarding the problem of Ecclesiastical Order is what you would describe as Work???? Yet, I emphasize that in deciding what we should do as Work, there are inevitable conflicts, or the reality of the political(the need for us to work things out without an immediate access to a correct answer provided by the Holy Spirit). I treat these sort of conflicts as inevitable, whereas you seem to dismiss them or perhaps treat their existence as due to how we do not follow the Holy Spirit closely enough. I am trying to re-explain what I hear you saying here, so forgive me if I get it wrong.

quote:

---

As the quote by the Orthodox seminary theologian said:

called as a particular people to perform a particular task

That's NOT unworldly. Its redeeming and transfiguring. You write, "the earthly manifestations are not the true Church", but the truth is that: WE CAN'T SAY!

---

Oh, I think one can be far more confident about what is not true than about what is true. Maybe this is the best of all possible worlds, one can never know for sure... .

quote:

---

Coming from a background with the confidence of Evangelicalism, this statment seems startling:

quote:

---

BARTHOLOMEW I (in Christian History Mag.): 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.

---

But where your background as an economist, and your historical criticisms indicate that you would fel badly about such "unworldlinesses" comes the statement at the end -- quite en-worlded:

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.

So, DLW, I can't reduce it to just one word... I need both:

WORK and SPIRIT

---

I had a hard time with the last statements in understanding. I tend to focus on facts and am suspicious of unworldliness, or claims to have the holy-spirit with one's position, inasmuch that such claims have been used to acquire power for rather worldly ends in the past and my views have been influenced much by my studies under Warren J. Samuels. He at one point, after I had shared some of my faith with him, commented that I just wanted to get the power. It is amazing how jaded he sees the world, but how accurate much of what he sees is.

I had an exchange with a Catholic friend(of which I do have quite a few) and he said at one point, "All it takes to be a good Protestant is to have a bad memory(G. K. Chesterton)." I retorted, "All it takes to be a good Catholic is a very selective memory." My view of RCC is colored by how much spiritual damage I see done in countries where it is predominant. My view of EO stems from its past historical failings, how it has treated other branches of Christianity, and many of its claims(also made in Eastern Catholicism) that its distinct form of Christianity is the closest to the early church. These fail to recognize that we may have some libertarian freedoms in how we develop the Church and that those theologies used in Ecclesiology may also not be Truths.

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.

quote:

---

The ministry of the celebrant is preaching and teaching. The ministry of the people of God is in accepting this teaching. But both these ministries are of the Holy Spirit, both are accomplished by him and in him.

---