Churches, of course, reflect the diversity of the American people who make up their membership, so it is not surprising that tensions between conservatives and liberals in churches echo views expressed in so-called secular culture. However, an added ingredient helps fuel the intensity of disagreement in church settings. People in Christian churches of all stripes affirm the reality of a divinely revealed truth, namely that the essence of the sacred is love, which is the touchstone of all human interactions. This is no mere abstract doctrine. The way we treat other people ”” accepting them with dignity as equals and loving them as we love ourselves ”” is at the heart of what Christianity is all about.
This disarmingly simply message can be, as the Scriptures say, a “stumbling block” for many. It asserts that the dignity of individuals supersedes any institutional claim ”” even by the church ”” that would diminish this dignity in any way. Loving my neighbor takes precedent over loving my church and reducing individuals to stereotypes.
What the Episcopal Church has done, and has done boldly and decisively, is to make a choice, a gamble of faith, without being able to predict or control the ultimate impact on the institution. It is likely that those who supported the action are humbled by the immensity of the risk, encouraged by a memorable moment of collective courage and comforted that the choice they made is consistent with the deepest meanings of the Christian faith.
When will TEC learn that you don’t gamble with your Christian faith? You’ll lose every time. Guaranteed!
[blockquote]It is likely that those who supported the action are humbled by the immensity of the risk….[/blockquote]
Is this the actual experience of anyone who was at General Convention? Or at any diocesan follow up presentations?
Majoritarian jubilation and smug triumphalism is what was described to me by a moderate who was a deputy at GC in Anaheim. (He is also a member of the Executive Council of TEC.)
“Some within the church have begun to recognize the extent to which the church has helped create an underclass of people — women and African-Americans, in particular — inside and outside the church”
This statement from a President of a University, no less – is completely without basis. Women had been underclass citizens since the beginning of time, and in some religions still are. It was the church that helped lead the way to equality. Likewise, the slave trade in Britain was brought to a halt through Evangelical Christianity and the civil rights movement in America in the 1950’s and 60’s was led by the church.
To be sure, there are places on the Earth where women are treated as second class citizens (the Middle East comes to mind), but it isn’t the church that is to blame.
*sigh* Again and again, we run along the fault line of two different faiths. Majorities and democratic voting cannot change or reinterpret what God has taught us. Sacred Scripture tells us that the validity of any particular teaching is proven by its fruits. What EPAC has sown for several decades has produced weeds and spoiled fruit: rancor and division. It has become a false teacher.
[blockquote]Loving my neighbor takes precedent over loving my church and reducing individuals to stereotypes.[/blockquote]
While Dr. Ladner is reminding us that if we have not love we are just noise he conveys a fallacy that the idea that loving our neighbor is the sum of the Bible. He leaves out the bits found throughout Deuteronomy that Jesus also laid before us as the first and greatest commandment of God: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.” There are some warnings and obligations to be found attached to that law that many have found it convenient to overlook.
“The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John; since that time the gospel of the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it.
But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail.” I suggest that Dr. Ladner spend some time meditating on what God in Deuteronomy says he expects from us.
“It is likely that those who supported the action are humbled by the immensity of the risk, encouraged by a memorable moment of collective courage and comforted that the choice they made is consistent with the deepest meanings of the Christian faith.” Did anyone see any sign of the winners at GC09 being “humbled” by anything? I did not. I saw a room full of spoiled children with their fingers in their ears, tapping their feet and chanting: “la, la, la…!” The feeling they ought to have with regard to the “immensity of the risk” is sheer, mortal terror. If they’re wrong, and Scripture, Reason, and Tradition are unequivocal and entirely consistent in establishing that they are wrong, the risk is damnation for them as individuals and for those that they lead astray in this fashion. And it is not the “wedge issue” of homosexual behaviors being legitimized and blessed, but the rejection of the clear meaning of Scripture and the refusal to abide by The Word that will condemn them. Do they feel humbled, encouraged and comforted by that?
There is no warrant in scripture for human “dignity”.
All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Our sin destroys our dignity. Our sin destroys ourselves at our deepest and most spiritual levels.
We are called to love our neighbors as ourselves, not because they have inherent dignity, nor because they (or we) have anything of inherent value worthy of love, but rather because they are made in the image of God himself, and God himself loves them. We are called to love our neighbors as ourselves because they reflect (however poorly) God’s dignity.
Jesus preached this gozpell? Talk about re-vising!
What is “disarmingly simple†is this simple misstep: that to love means to affirm unconditionally.
On the contrary, the God who IS love is the Living God of utter purity and unfathomable holiness who has no truck with evil of any form, and whose sheer desire to dwell with his human creature means NOT [i]affirmation[/i] at all costs but rather the death of his Son, an infinite cost of divine love that awesomely covers sin.
Unravelling this loving holy desire who IS the true God is “disarmingly†… rich and complex; indeed, mercifully immeasurable (Rom 11:33ff). Sorry Dr. Lander: it ain’t that “simple†at all …
Randy, the “warrant” for human dignity is the concept of Imago Dei. We all fall short, of course, and the wages are death.
#9 there is nothing in your statement that a reappraiser could not disagree with. The challenge is asking: is self-deception a sin? Is sin an inability to see gay people also made in the image of God? There is also a difference between affirming promiscuity and relationships that bring self-control, which was how Paul defined marriage.
I’m not sure Paul “defined” marriage as such, but recommended it for those who were unable to restrain their passions. There’s no indication that Paul ever recommended any marriage other than that ordained by God, as between a man and a woman. He most certainly did not urge even those inflamed by passions to enter into a relationship that was per se sinful.
Thanks John in # 10; I shall give a go at trying to unravel your own steps …
A reappraiser, while seeking to love and not merely to affirm, sees habitual sin as an obstacle to certain ‘forms of life’. Yet, they claim, it is not a sin to formally co-habit with a person of the same gender, “formally†meaning to commit to a life-long relationship versus a mere casual way of behaving. And of course such co-habitation also means expressions of (sexual) intimacy are integral to such forms of relationship. … Have I got you so far?
I am from this point on unsure why you invoked “imago Dei†– except of course as the primer for treating all humans with dignity and respect – which was your point to Randy in #7. And a point with which I agree; it underscores JP2’s pronouncements again and again in preference to “rights†language.
But why drag this line into my own comment? Sure; sin frequently involves self-deception (but I have turned your sentence around now). And is to my mind one of the basic problems with our current cultural set of assumptions: “any form of sexual intimacy between consenting adults in private is OKâ€. Modest reappraisers only wish to see commitment and not casual ‘forms of life’, granting therefore both a tick and a cross to contemporary culture – having a bob each way! And of course those who deem themselves as either gay or lesbian are made in the image of God; one’s humanity is NOT defined by one’s perceived sexual orientation.
Rather, the question is: should we human creatures made in the image of God seek to express our desires for intimacy in ways that are not fully commensurate with natural law? For natural law alone – let alone special revelation – would suggest the institution of marriage is confined to relationships between men and women (I allow in this definition some forms of polygamy and/or polyandry, even if the ideal is as per 1 Tim 3: one woman one man). Thereafter, one definition of sin could easily be: that which contravenes natural law let alone special revelation, for God is the Creator of nature. The trouble though could be an objection based on Rom 2 or 5; but that, working backwards, I sense would be caught by the generic condemnation of Rom 1. So; there is no self control and/or restraint in a css relationship at all – even granting your “differenceâ€.
Our contemporary cultural misstep, to which TEC et al have succumbed, is that we indeed affirm all ‘forms of life’ as equally valid: Pluralism rules; OK. Lander – and probably yourself, as with the logic of the reappraiser – has also simply fallen for another misstep so frequently addressed by the present pope: rending asunder love from truth. Just so; sin does deceive or mar the truth; and so distorts the true meaning of “loveâ€.
All of which is a long and rambling way of saying: your supposed reappraiser sadly has the wrong ‘form of love’. They are deceived in their minds – and so their hearts and bodies. They could not agree with my statement, properly.
Let us suppose that God loves homosexuals equally with all others. Let us suppose that inclusivity must be the norm for this is the standard established by God’s love. Does this mean that therefore God has given over the power to condemn forever after death because he will not condemn those whom he loves? or has he kept the power but held it in abeyance because inclusivity demands that none be abandoned? Or does God not love those whom he condemns? This is not idle sarcasm or cynicism, but a request for an answer to such questions that never seem to arise during discussions of this sort. Larry
#12 – you say that “Rather, the question is: should we human creatures made in the image of God seek to express our desires for intimacy in ways that are not fully commensurate with natural law?” Well, perhaps this is one of the issues. I think we disagree where natural law leads us.
But another issue is what makes a marriage? How about a marriage of two people who can’t procreate? Is a marriage about mutual joy? Or is it about topological proximity?
Do I think that all forms of behavior are equal? No. Clearly men who do not love or respect their wives fall short. And vice versa. To accuse me of an easy pluralism is to diminish the fundamental point: a marriage should bring mutual joy – in a complete sense that includes the daily pleasures of companionship. I do not think that all marriages are equal. But I think that the quality of love, rather than the movement of genitalia, is more interesting to God in a monogamous relationship.