Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi

Fair questions. The answers, of course, are not easy and depend on a number of things. First, however, I am not suggesting that it’s not “permissible” to talk about moral issues. Quite the contrary - we ought ot be talking about them. We ought to be talking about them primarily within the context of pastoral relationships, however.

Secondly, I didn’t suggest that unity was the “end goal;” I suggested that unity was an appropriate goal in this situation.

Finally, regarding the key questions here…. Moral issues are worth doing something about - that something has to be appropriate. Appropriate must take into consideration…
*the full corpus of scripture and the importance scripture places on it,
*the variety of exegetical approaches to the issue,
*how the individual is effected,
*how the church is effected,
*if anyone is harmed in the situation,
*…and probably others.

The homosexuality debate has been prone to extremes and virulent. The only cause of that I can discern is that people have visceral responses to it and theologize to affirm their beliefs.

Speaking specifically, at classis last night it was suggested that gays, lesbians and other non-heterosexuals are “dangerous” to our children and the church. That is inflamitory language with no basis and certainly doesn’t reflect the behavior we see Jesus exhibiting in the NT.

Thoughts?

Grace and Peace,
`tim

The same old arguments don’t become more effective just because their repeated….

Jesus does certainly talk about purity, but his approach to it was always passive - he never hunted out people to condemn. He was in relationship with them and, when the time was appropriate, confronted them in an appropriate way….pastorally.

As for legitimizing visceral responses. Pooh. Let’s not pretend that our personal reactions legitimize anything. I, for example, have immensely strong personal reactions to mushrooms. So what. On a less mundane level, I have personal reactions to a whole slew of things - some appropriate, some I’ve learned over the years, not. Besides, Steve, you’ve argued on a number of occasions that experience is not a valid theological source (for those who argue for the inclusion of gays and lesbians) why the waffeling now?

I notice, as well, that you didn’t touch on the key concept of my original post - that, as a church, we need to take into consideration the harm done to both the church and the individual. This, simply isn’t a major issue; except that we’ve made it one.

It’s also worth noting, that I’m not convinced that the grace/truth paradigm is the only setting within which we should be dealing with it. Indeed, it’s really just a way of saying “we’re right, but we’re willing to occasionally not shove it down someone’s throat when it suits us.”

Until next time

Grace and Peace,
`tim

Thanks for the post, Tim. Your thoughts on all of this continue to challenge and clarify my own thinking.

Speaking of radical moderates, I was reading an interview of N.T. Wright today at http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/123/23.0.html . In one question he was asked if Jesus would be part of this movement or that, and I found his response really interesting:

“I was once leading a party of tourists in Palestine…where the Essenes were and we went down to Masada where the lost and the revolutionaries have been and we had been up in Jerusalem the previous day and going around the Temple which the Sadducees were running. I was commenting, isn’t it interesting that Jesus doesn’t do this one, doesn’t do that one, doesn’t do the other one. There are all these different options and instead Jesus ends up in Gethsemane which is a way of saying yes and no to everything. He doesn’t run away, but nor does he lead an armed resistance. He doesn’t try to become a king in the ordinary sense. He does this very strange thing which comes right through the middle and which, therefore, remains the most deeply subversive thing you can imagine.”

Jesus found - or rather, created - a sort of middle way of saying both yes and no to a variety of things going on in his culture. I’m wondering how this might apply in negotiating our own cultural landscape…

No profound insights here, just wanted to share something I thought you might enjoy

I never claimed my feelings legitimized any position. My point is that when evil is called good, the resulting frustration is natural and good, because injustice is being done. I’m not putting the visceral reaction before the theological judgment. It’s a REaction we’re talking about - to a wrong theology.

See here for more on comment 7
http://hemmeke.blogspot.com/2005/09/jesus-likely-response-to-homosexuality.html

Sometimes I think you guys think that if I learned someone was a homosexual, I would started yelling profanities at them about how they’re going to hell. You’re just not taking the time to try to understand what I’m saying.

I know you’re saying we need to be NICE to people who don’t fit our category of “moral.” And believe me, I am.

Why can’t you see that we need to retain Scriptural categories of right and wrong on issues where the world says, “big deal” or “it’s only natural”?

This is a big deal today because the world is asserting loudly that homosexuality is OK. Not because conservative Christians hate homosexuals.

One final note….

Homosexuality is not an issue that automatically declares someone “liberal” or “conservative” — it’s time to realize those polarizing categories are ineffective in almost all situations - this one is no exception.

Grace and peace,.
`tim

Scott…

Your point is well taken — Isn’t it interestiong? Simply daring to suggest that homosexuality isn’t “out to get us” says I’m a radical liberal who doesn’t believe in the Bible….That’s the tone of discussions in the RCA, isn’t it?!

(BTW, I’m not saying Steve, or anyone else on this blog, used the terms in the previous paragrah. Just making it clear before anyone argues!)

My whole point, which my congregation & elders have discussed, is that only doctrines on the par with the Trinity, Divine Sovereignty, etc. are matters of status confessionis. They are worth going to the grave for — others are not.

I expect my classis will come up with some statement on homosexuality and try to get everyone to sign it — as if it deserves the attention and status of our standards or ordination vows….ugh. I suppose 2006 will be another long year for the RCA.

Grace and peace,
`tim

About Jesus and purity and the moneychangers in the Temple: yes, Jesus threw them out, but he never forbade them from coming back in (as long as they left their merchandise outside). Our Lord did not chase people away in his quest for purity; he simply would not allow them to behave that way within the worship space. Yes, he also wanted them to find a better way to live, but that wasn’t a prerequisite for worshiping God (if it were, we’d all be in serious trouble). A more correct analogy to the present RCA discussions would be people of homosexual orientation engaging in sexual activities in the narthex; of course, we don’t want that, but we don’t want heterosexuals doing that, either.

Now, for the bigger question: I’m signing up for the radical moderates party. I fully believe that what we know of as homosexuality is not what Scripture addresses directly. Do I believe that same-sex relationships are part of God’s plan for life? No. Shall we make a list of everything that isn’t part of God’s plan for life? None of us have sufficient RAM to download it. This is what total depravity is all about.

Now, are committed relationships part of God’s plan for life? Yes. And does God use ALL things for good for those who love Christ? Yes! If we exclude homosexual orientation from that list, we are limiting God . . . a much bigger sin (if we can even talk about sins as bigger or smaller, but that’s another conversation) than any of which two homosexual people trying to develop a loving, committed relationship in a fallen world might reasonably be accused. Not to mention the sin of falling victim to our fears of gays and lesbians in the face of the awesome power of God.

I know and have known many gays and lesbians, including Ann Kansfield, through whom the Holy Spirit is most obviously at work. Who am I, who is the RCA, to even THINK of excluding them? Who are we to decide that God will reject their expressions of love (agape as well as eros, filia, or storge) made to the best of their ability?

The Priest was looking to help new comeres and visitors understand the complexities of Anglican Eucharist practice and so asked them to send in their questions. Here was my question. I would recommed it to anyone who is called to “do something.”

Dear Brain,

Thank you for the invitation for questions about our Eucharist practice. HereÂ’s my question.

In the Lord’s Prayer we pray “ . . . deliver us from evil.”
To whom does the “us” refer?

I struggle with issues of War in Iraq, issues surrounding sexual orientation, and the current political climate in the country I love. The issues are important. Relationships and peopleÂ’s lives are at risk. As I struggle, I turn the people with whom I disagree into my competitors, my competitors into my opponents, and then my opponents into my enemies.

In these struggles the most marvelous things happened. First I came across the prayer For our Enemies (#6 in the BCP pg. 816). Next it seemed that I could pray this prayer by letting the “us” in the Lord’s prayer refer to both those who pray with me and also to my competitors, my opponents, and my enemies.

Now at every Eucharist and praying of the Lord’s prayer I can lay the burden of my hate and fear at Jesus’ feet. I can give the burden of “delivering us from evil” back to God. And, until I pick the burdens back up, I can see Jesus in the eyes of my competitors, my opponents, and my enemies.

In ChristÂ’s service,
Tim Dodd