Marriage has a particular meaning for me as a clergy person.
But as I see it, whether New York state should allow its civil, state-issued marriage licenses to go to same-sex couples is an entirely separate issue from whether marriages of same-sex couples will happen in a church.
My faith teaches me that all people are children of God, deserving of love, dignity and equal treatment.
When same-sex couples are treated as less than anyone else, it is my problem; my spiritual problem.
The diocesan website says, “We are a dynamically inclusive Church with room for traditional, as well as progressive expressions of faith and ethics in these challenging times.”
Sigh. Are there as many as 36 righteous bishops left in TEC?
Hmmm. Ralph, why do you say 36? Seems like an odd number.
David Handy+
On a more serious note, this idiotic statement by +Prince Singh illustrates once again why the fierce, mortal struggle we’re in isn’t just about homosexuality. It shows quite clearly that we’re dealing with the inevitable clash between two rival and mutually exclusive worldviews within the Church, only one of which is biblical and legitimate.
That is, the bishop is simply wrong in stating so blithely that we’re all “children of God.” That politically correct language is completely contrary to the teaching of the New Testament, which insists that only those who’ve been born supernaturally from above are children of God. Now of course, we’re all as human beings CREATURES of God and thus beloved by him, but that’s another matter entirely.
The classic text is in the immortal Prologue to John’s Gospel, “But to all who received him, who believed in his (Christ’s) name, he gave power to BECOME children of God, who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:12-13). It should be noted that John even implicitly denies that Jews, as God’s cherished covenant people, are “children of God.” No, only faith in Jesus Christ and becoming a new creature in him qualifies anyone to the glorious status of being a child of God.
The implicit universalism in +Prince Singh’s statement gets to the heart of the problem. We’re watching the bitter and unavoidable clash between two competing gospels, two radically contradictory worldviews, that can’t (and won’t) peacefully co-exist under one roof.
My pastor in Richmond, David Singh+ (of Eternity Anglican, affiliated with Uganda) once knew the Bishop of Rochester (NY) well back in South India, where they both come from. He says Prince Singh used to be a fine, orthodox priest. But alas, he’s sadly been corrupted since coming to the USA and serving for years in the ultra-liberal Diocese of Newark.
A frim reminder that it’s not how you start the race that matters, it’s how you finish it.
David Handy+
Fr Handy+
I just posted a similar question over on Stand Firm.
Maybe I’m naive, and perhaps this will seem a bit mean-spirited to some, but I have a point of contention with the bishop.
As I understand biblical theology, all people are by nature creatures of God. Formed in God’s image, male and female.
We become children of God, sons and daughters of God by adoption, through our faith in Jesus Christ?!
I know it’s fashionable to refer to all people as “God’s childrenâ€, and in a weak moment of pastoral need, I may have lapsed into that usage myself, but I don’t think it’s Christian theology in an orthodox or biblical sense.
Others?
Fr. Darin Lovelace+
St. David’s Anglican Church
Durant, Iowa
Some critical mass of righteous persons, needed to keep the divine presence in the world, or in this case, the Church.
We’re seeing a gradual erosion. Perhaps 10 righteous bishops would save the New Sodom from its destruction.
The number 36 refers to the tzaddikim of mystical Judaism. It would seem that the Bp. of Rochester, NY is not a lamedh vavnik. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzadikim_Nistarim
Fr. Darin (#4),
Of course, I agree with you. I’ll only add that the NT contains two images or metaphors for how we become God’s children, by adoption (something especially stressed by Paul), and through regeneration, or being born again or born from above (especially stressed in John, though also found in Titus 3:5 and 1 Peter).
But the point is that simply being God’s creatures isn’t sufficient for salvation. Doubtless, our foes will accuse us of holding to a highly divisive, polarizing theology that drives a wedge between members of the ever-shrinking global village, creatng animosity between Christians and non-Christians. And to that charge, I happily plead “Guilty.” Christ is indeed (in one sense) the great divider of humanity, between the saved and the lost. Of course, in another sense, he’s the great reconciler, who unites in himself the people of the earth divided and enslaved by sin, and overcoming all the racial, cultural, class, and educational barriers we humans have erected in this world. But the great reconciliation of all things spoken of in classic texts like Eph. 1:10 only takes place IN HIM. Those who aren’t in him because they refuse to believe and obey him, are excluded, by their own choice.
BTW, let me correct a gross typo in my #3. The “grim” reality is that it’s not how we start a race that counts, it’s how we finish it.
David Handy+
Thanks, Ralph (#5).
You’ve just nicely illustrated how much someone can learn by reading blogs like this one.
David Handy+
[blockquote]We are a dynamically inclusive Church with room for traditional, as well as progressive expressions of faith and ethics in these challenging times. [/blockquote]
(Matthew 12:25). ‘And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand’.
Fr. Handy (or anyone else),
Not to get into semantics, but I find myself wondering about the phrase from yesterday’s Gospel, “You did not choose me but I chose you.” (John 15:16) Isn’t the mark of all children that they don’t choose their parents, but are “chosen” (by the decision of the latter to pursue conception). I’m obviously not here to disagree that there needs to be a response from us to be beneficiaries of adoption and grace, but if we are created in the image of the Creator are we not all children, even if some are prodigal? I welcome enlightenment from the better-informed.
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
Jeremy Bonner,
It might help to think of us as living works of art. Just as a self-portrate or artist’s sculpture of himself bears the image of a human, it is not a human being, nor is it the “child” of a human being; it is the creation of a human being. An artist may speak of his art as his “children” but we all know he is speaking metaphorically. The art is not really alive and, while it tells us about the artist, it does not have the artist’s nature.
So we, who are created in the image of God, are not children of God by our nature. We are, and always will be, creations of God. We are adopted as His children and given a new kind of life – one animated by the Holy Spirit – through faith in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Thanks Phil. That seems reasonable.
Ephesians 3:14, 15 reads For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, 15 from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named,… And from that verse, I have heard others say “See the Scriptures teach that we are all the children of God.”
But this reference is in the context of Ephesians that clearly lays out the extravagant generosity of God IN Christ Jesus (as pointed out by David about in #6). The point of this verse is not to say that all are God’s children, but rather that God has created all peoples and has the authority and power as Creator to give new life in Christ Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Jeremy (#9),
I’ll take a little different tack than Deacon Phil in responding to your question. In light of such passages as John 1:12 that I cited above, where it’s those who RECEIVED Christ and BELIEVED in him to whom God gave the power to BECOME children of God (which certainly implies that they weren’t such divine children before that), I think we could paraphrase the thrust of that saying you quote from John 15 this way: “You didn’t really choose me, but I first chose you.” That is, in the same way that we love God only because he first loved us, we do indeed have to choose Christ as our Savior and Lord, but this only happens in the inscrutable mystery of the providence of God, because he first chooses us to choose him.
So no, I think the analogy between natural birth and spiritual birth breaks down precisely at the point where the latter is seen as automatic or universal (as if, in your analogy, everyone is a child of God, but some are wandering prodigals). In the theology of the Fourth Gospel and of Paul. only Christians are children of God. Of course, that by no means implies that all people aren’t loved by God, etc. In the famous and important phrase of Tertullian (First Apology, chap. 18), “Christians are MADE, NOT BORN.”
And secondly, the hidden assumption concealed in +Prince Singh’s deluded statment is that people afflicted with homosexual attractions were somehow created that way by God. That is a totally bogus assumption, with no real scientific support, despite the increasingly wide acceptance of that plausible but false notion in our society.
David Handy+
This man is no bishop of the Faith of Jesus Christ; Prince Singh is aligned with the prince of darkness.
The position he and the Episcopal Church and some others take, approving what God says is sinful and harmful to humans and their society is unconscionable. (shouldn’t God who made us know?) By blessing sinful (and harmful) behaviors, they are closing the door to redemption and freedom and health for people with same-sex sexualized feelings (which are conditioned emotional responses toward persons of the same sex). These desires are symptoms, not a fixed state of being.
It is an awful irony for a church to deny people salvation. They essentially seem not to know or believe in salvation, sanctification and the benefits of self-denial – which lead to the ultimate blessing – the abundant life of holiness, righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.
It is a travesty when a church stands against Scripture, the combined wisdom of 4000 years of old and new testament history, the teaching of the Apostles, early church fathers, martyrs, saints, theologians and Scripture and testimonies of countless people saved from this temptation and every other sort of sinful desire and activity.
Romans 1:18-32, I Corinthians 6:9-20, I Corinthians 10:13 and Hebrews 7:25 are absolutely inclusive and do not grant exclusion or exemption to any persons from the work of repentance, sanctification and discipleship including those with same-sex feelings and desires.
What if what the culture approves is freely accepted? If homosex, abortion, teen sex becomes pre-teen sex, then threesomes, pederasty,
What would be the outcome on health and human life if the ideas of these radical social architects are given latitude?
If scientific research, clinical practice in medicine and mental health and statistics are any indicator, physical, mental/emotional and spiritual health of both males and females will decline and families will not be stable or healthy.
The book, Unprotected, by Miriam Grossman, M.D., (medical doctor, a psychiatrist on a University campus) shows the effect of the sexual revolution on young women’s mental and physical health. There are plenty of sources for statistics on unhealthy negative outcomes of same-sex behaviors.
There are other resources that show approval and accomodation of sin does not help the economic status of governments due to increased need for police and health services. Beware NY State…do not listen to this false shepherd. Departure from God’s laws always corrupts and erodes integrity and prosperity, that of individual and of the state.
To follow up a bit with Fr. Handy’s post, the reappraisers in TEC (and elsewhere) tend to mistake fact (what is) with truth (what it means). They tend to use the statements they like from “scientists” to make claims about God’s desires and God’s will.
I explore that a bit at [url=http://deaconslant.blogspot.com/2009/05/science-and-religion-and-blessing-same.html]the Deacon’s Slant[/url]
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
[blockquote] My faith teaches me that all people are children of God, deserving of love, dignity and equal treatment. [/blockquote]
I can’t help thinking that it’s the other way around, that it’s [i]you[/i] teaching your faith that. The parable of the eleventh hour hired hand comes to mind. The others worked all day and bore the scorching heat, while this one came along at the end of the day and was paid the same wages. The vineyard owner said he has the right to pay as he sees fit. But it seems to me that you would complain that this was a case of unequal treatment.
And speaking of equal treatment, one thing seems to me to be a very confused and confusing message coming from the GLBT side. On the one hand, they claim that we’re all morally obligated to celebrate diversity, to bless differences, and definitely not to judge someone who’s “different”. And yet, at the same time, they seem to want to do away with all differences so that there’s no difference between man and woman, they’re interchangeable; they’d have us believe there’s no difference between same-sex marriage and opposite-sex marriage. Absolute equality in every conceivable way must rule the land. (And absolutes are bad things, except when they promote the GLBT agenda.)
Ball of confusion . . . that’s what the world is today!
Do I get this right? “…[M]arriage has a particular meaning as a clergy person”, for this bishop, and that meaning deprives same-sex couples of their civil rights. So, is the bishop saying that his Christian belief violates human rights?
Handy+
It seems that the New Reformation that you Advocate fits perfectly in line with Cheistian Identity. It even uses their chosen verses and arguments.
Brian from T19 (#18),
I can’t respond thoughtfully to your post because I don’t get the point of it. I assume there’s an accidental typo here, and you meant Christian Identity, but then you use the third person pronoun, “their” chosen verses and arguments, as if you’re disavowing any Christian identity yourself. Anyway, if you want to try again and rephrase your comment, I’d be happy to respond.
David Handy+
David (#19),
I think that Brian from T19 meant “Christian Identity.” (google it if you want to read rather unsavory thoughts). This is a rather heinous slur as this movement is racist in its underlying theology. BT19 cannot argue against your ideas, so he must slur you as a racist.
Brian, since I agree with Fr. Handy that we are not created as God’s children, but are only His children by adoption (regardless of our race), can you show me where my ideas are in any way similar to those of that racist group?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Hi Jeremy (#9). David Handy’s comments are as always very helpful given your question. Phil Snyder’s response (#10) is probably the direction I would have gone myself, but both are on target.
If you’d like to see Phil’s post fleshed out in a lot more detail, take a look at the last big section of MERE CHRISTIANITY by C.S. Lewis. Of especial help are the chapters “Making and Begetting”, “Good Infection”, and “The Obstinate Toy Soldiers.”
Basically the problem people nowadays have, and the Bishop of Rochester is typical here, is that they’ve heard the phrase “child of God” so many times that it’s become a shallow cliche. Repetition has robbed it of its original shocking meaning.
The best way to explain it (in comes C.S. Lewis) is to think of oridnary animals. When a fox has a child that child is necessarily a fox; when a dog has a child that child is a dog; when a lion has a child that child is a lion. To claim to be the child of X means that you are in your very substance the sort of thing that X is. This is why it was so shocking when Jesus said that God was his Father. He was claiming in his very substance to be God.
Phil helpfully explains that as creatures we are at best only in the IMAGE of God — the way for example a photograph might be an image or likeness of a man, but still only a bit of paper and not the same thing at all as the real living breathing thinking willing acting 170 pound fellow it was an image of.
So when the Bible tells us that we have a chance, by somehow being found “in Christ” to become actual real sons of God, that’s an incredible claim. That’s why only the direct command of Jesus himself can give us, poor feeble sinners that we are, the outrageous temerity (the “boldness” that the liturgy mentions) to actually pray the Our Father.
“My faith teaches me that all people are children of God, deserving of love, dignity and equal treatment”
Ya-Ya…in my Faith, also. But the “equal treatment” means equal judgement for sins. Go look at Ninevah. Or Sodom. Many more to see how God views this issue.
In Genesis, He created “man” and “woman” and they got married. I suggest the Bishop go back to seminary or bishop school or whatever…
bl
Philip and Handy+
Christian Identity defines three classes of people-God’s Children, Creatures and Satan’s Children. Handy+ makes a point of singling out the Jews:
It should be noted that John even implicitly denies that Jews, as God’s cherished covenant people, are “children of God.â€
Both the Creatures and Satan’s Children (Jews) are excluded from heaven because they are not Children of God.
As to whether or not a person is a racist, I have no information.
As to arguing against Handy+ ideas, I wasn’t attempting to. I was simply noting the similarities.
Brian,
None of us – Jews or Gentiles – are children of God by birth! I think you willfully misconstrued our argument to fit your own preconceive stereotypes of reasserters as racist haters.
The only human being that qualified as a child of God from birth is Jesus Christ. Neither Phil Snyder nor David Handy nor Brian from T19 are children of God from birth. We are all creatures of God and those who have accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior are God’s children [b]by adoption[/b].
There is not similarity between that statement and the beliefs of the Christian Identity movement which posits that Europeans are the true decendents of the Jews and that todays “Jews” are not really Jews at all. Further, only white people (the true decendents of the Jews) have souls. That is racist garbage and has no place in Christian witness. I ask you to either withdraw your comparison or to give proof of that what we are saying is racists along the lines of the Christian Identity movement.
I know a bit about this movement because there are some CIs in prison and they try to infect the chapel programs with their racist garbage.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Philip
I say again: “As to whether or not a person is a racist, I have no information.” If you say you are not a acist, I believe you. I never claimed you or Handy+ were racists I simply pointed out the similarities. Nothing more.
1 John 3:10: “This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.â€
It is frequently the second test that trips us up.
And Phil’s point was that there are no similarities, Brian. Please think carefully before you fire off silly statements.
I was listening to a podcast of a sermon by an old friend who was asking whether Christianity is intolerant. He said:
Here is the glorious tolerance of the wide open arms of Jesus – “Come to me ALL that are heavy laden”
And here is the amazing exclusivity of Jesus –
“Come to ME all who are heavy laden”.
Salvation is found in no one else.
Brian,
You did did not point out any similarities. You simply said that they exist. So, again, I ask you to give proof or withdraw the comment.
Perhaps you don’t know how loathsome this group’s theology is. I suspect, given your unwillingness to apologize, that you know full well the slander you are giving.
As I have said, I am familiar with this group’s (or, more accurately, these groups’) ideas of race and theology and there is [b]nothing[/b] similiar between what they teach regarding being a child of God and what David or I teach. CI teaches that only white (and sometimes only Anglo-Saxon) Europeans are children of God and have souls. No one else does. David and I (and the rest of Christianity, mind you) teach that everyone is created in the image of God, but that we are only children of God by adoption, not by creation. I will say that again, just in case you missed it: All people ([b]ALL PEOPLE[/b]) are made in the image of God. But only those who have accepts Jesus as Lord and Savior are God’s children by adoption. No one (aside from Jesus Christ) is God’s child by nature.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Phil,
Thanks for coming to the defense. I’d never heard of the bizarre racist group called “Christian Identity” before, and so I failed to catch the insult. As you’ve already made an adequate reply to Brian’s slur, I won’t dignify his outrageous comparison by adding anything myself.
I’ve done 5 or 6 Kairos weekends myself (I know you’re active in that prison ministry too), but I’ve never come across that hateful CI stuff. Anyway, keep visiting those in prison, Phil, and thus ministering with compassion to those among “the least of these.”
David Handy+
Wow — the standard Christian doctrine about adoption into God’s family is transformed by Brian From T19 into the beliefs of the Christian Identity movement.
Desperate times . . . call for desperate ad hominems.
Why not just go all the way and point out that [drum roll] Hilter believed in Christmas.
Phil Synder,
You showed remarkable poise and grace in responding to Brian’s slurs. Good on you (and shame on him).
After 31 comments, I went back and read the link to the Bishop’s statement and I can’t quite make out why there is any furor. Unless I am uncommonly muddle-headed, his comments appeared to only address civil marriage status, not religious marriage. To the extent he addressed the religious institution, I read his comments to reaffirm the point that same sex marriages are not permitted in a religious context. The Bishop seems to take a very unequivocal position that the state can’t compel religious institutions to conform to secular requirements. Don’t we all agree with that? What’s all the rest of the noise here?
Hello NoVA Scout (#32). Go back up to post #3 and read David Handy’s post. That will give help you understand what most of the discussion has been about.
David and myself and many other reasserters believe that homosexuality is not the real issue in the current TEC and Anglican Communion crisis. It appears to be the main issue on the surface. Certainly the mainstream press, by and large, think it is. But it isn’t. David and others feel it is a symptom of a much deeper issue.
The deeper problem, as we see it, is that deep fundamental ideas of the historic apostolic faith — ideas that have nothing to do with sexual ethics — have in TEC been jettisoned, or better said gradually eroded.
This thread takes one such crucial idea (the notion that we are not born children of God but become so by adoption, only by being found In Christ) and notes that the bishop has abandoned it. Most of the comments were riffing on that idea.
As far as the apostate bishop’s comments about homosexuality and gay marriage (civil vs. church sanctioned) his comments are confused. I would personally agree with him that his concern should be solely with the latter (church sanctioned) — but if that’s what he thinks, why is he stepping forward AS A BISHOP to argue on religious grounds for gay civil marriage? And as far as church sanctioned gay marriage liturgies go, he simply observes that he’s not allowed by TEC to do them yet officially — not exactly the reassuring statement T19 readers might hope for.
Jon (#33),
Thanks. You’re quite right, and I appreciate the enthusiastic commendation. Hmmm, since your comment #21 was highly laudatory too, it seems that you are a prime candidate for joining the elite NRAFC (NRA Fan Club, of course). Feel free to contact me privately for an application. I’ll be happy to waive the usual membership fee.
OK, just kidding. But let me get serious now, for crucial issues are indeed at stake here.
Part of what I was trying to get at above is that what’s so revealing about the Bishop of Rochester’s public statement is that +Prince Singh just takes it for granted that everyone is a child of God (and implicitly that gay people were made that way by God, so homosexual behavior must not be bad after all). The very fact that he blithely assumes the truth of such patently anti-biblical notions speaks volumes about why this vexing crisis we’re in has been so long, wearisome, and hard-fought. We’re dealing with the inevitable clash between two rival and mutually exclusive worldviews, only one of which is authentically Christian.
This church civil war pits two whole comprehensive approaches to reality against each other, where the things taken for granted by the opposing sides are radically opposed to each other. It’s as if we live on different religious planets, although we’re trying to get along within the same tradition, Anglicanism.
Jon, you and Phil Snyder have been wonderful allies on this thread. Thanks to both of you.
David Handy+
#34. New Reformation Advocate
[blockquote]Hmmm, since your comment #21 was highly laudatory too, it seems that you are a prime candidate for joining the elite NRAFC (NRA Fan Club, of course). Feel free to contact me privately for an application. I’ll be happy to waive the usual membership fee.[/blockquote]
Better not go there NRA. Fan clubs can be injurious to you health. Wasn’t Selena murdered by the president of her fan club?
Dcn Dale,
You may be right. Another historical example that immediately sprang to mind was Brutus joining in the plot to assassinate his friend Julius Caesar. And of course, Jesus was betrayed by Judas, one of the Twelve.
But as the NRAFC only meets on-line, I’d rate the actual risks to my health and safety as rather low. However, thanks for the warning.
David Handy+
same sex unions = marriage?? Not in my Bible. Nuff Said!!!