Re: A Biblical Argument for Unions: straight, gay or platonic

[Andy Lang]

Since this topic has come up, Herb asked a few months ago if there was interest in discussing my paper from the "Covenant and Sexuality" conference at Andover Newton and Hebrew College in June. At the time, it wasn't available online, but now is at http://www.ants.edu/pdf/AndrewLangCovenantSexualitypaper.pdf.

 

Andy Lang
Cleveland, OH
216-926-6262
lang...@sbcglobal.net
http://i.UCC.org
http://langohio.blogspot.com

---

From: rjeasleasland <jeas...@pie.midco.net>
To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 4:54:19 PM
Subject: Re: A Biblical Argument for Unions: straight, gay or platonic. Ecclesiastes 4:7-12

Vince: You sound like the Andy Rooney of theology. Blessings  Roger

----- Original Message -----

From: Vince

To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 9:42 AM

Subject: Re: A Biblical Argument for Unions: straight, gay or platonic. Ecclesiastes 4:7-12

Herb,

truly we all find texts which say what we want them to say.  Perhaps that is a gift from God as there are so many texts.  Perhaps it is that our ability to hold them all together at the same time is flawed by our humanity.

I totally disagree with your view that Paul is attacking same sex relationships.  Paul attacked what he attacked, no mincer of words he.   Paul did speak quite strongly against those who do what is unnatural - leaving us room to question what is "natural," whether that be a group normative that is impossible to quantify for any generation let alone all and thus is applied tyrannically, so whether Paul was speaking to the individual.  What is natural for me (being a White Sox fan, thinking 'Deadwood' was great tv, and living with dogs all my life, usually two or three at a time) is not natural for you, perhaps, but you catch my minced drift.

To say 'the culture knew' and thus Paul speaking counter culture was including that is - to me- far fetched.  Paul said what he said.  This is a man who ripped into gossips, being crafty, those who are insolent, boastful, foolish, disrespectful towards parents, heartless.  I await the movement to ban these people from being clergy or being married.  I have never heard an overweight pastor rip into gluttony (although I have heard a few joking sermonic references that this is "my" "weakness" but God "understand" and it really is
"minor" because look at those big sinners over there" they do something that I do not and thus they! are! big! sinners!

Amazing or not that the cultural touchstones of our age are orientation and abortion, and none are spoken of in Scripture.  One may deduce from Scripture all one wants - and let's face it, we need to, for that is a part of the reason we exist as Church, to study and listen together - but how is it we listen to the silences?  How do we listen to what God does not say? 

I humbly (and in fear) suggest that if one wants to be counter cultural to Rome in Paul's day, that counter culture will depend on individual preference.  Thus we assume Paul is counter cultural to gladiator fights, emperor worship, and slavery (despite evidence against the later, sadly) and some want to include same gender relationships - but maybe Paul, silent there, was not counter cultural to that, maybe he was counter cultural to voting, having a Senate, and celebrating holy days.  I suspect that what one decides that Paul is counter cultural to says more about that one than about Paul, or God, or the Gospel.

The whole current debate on orientation is a disservice to the Gospel.  It is good, every good transcending, that I am a pacifist on Biblical grounds (which I hold is a Biblical ethic but not a universally mandated Biblical ethic, thus my son the Marine) because that keeps me from slapping the next person who says that the Bible teaches that God ordained marriage is between a man and a woman because the Bible says no such thing.  Is there one good Ward and June Cleaver marriage in the Bible (and I specifically cite the fictional Cleavers as the ethic that longing eyes look to).  Of those prime pillars of the Church, Peter to the record never had a thing to do with his wife and abandoned her for all we know, and Paul said, don't get married unless your lust is so great but really, don't get married.  And marriage is not God ordained at least for us protestants where neither marriage nor ordination is a sacrament.  (And for those who hold those as sacraments, ordination and celibacy are for the clergy, marriage and laity-status is for the rest of the folk but then there is no condemnation of lay people who do not marry so it is not so God commanded even there.)

It is odd to me that some seem to be comfortable in their own orientation only when they denigrate and condemn as unBiblical the orientation of others.  And the whole pointing at others things is a disturbing thing, contra to Jesus' teachings.

We all fall short... take the wealth thing - yes of course the Church's message on wealth is muted, because we love our endowments and big givers, and we justify that as the reality of the real world in which the church corporate must exist.  I'm down with that.  But those who criticize the church's stance on wealth - what is that individual's balance sheet?  Have they their own self given everything away and live with only what they carry on their back?  Do they live in the economic commualism communism of Acts?  Are they right now concerned about the drop of their pension stock portfolio (I know that I certainly am) vis a vis their retirement (I know I certainly am).  Does the criticizer live counter cultural to our own cultural, so thus lives in homeless shelters or temporarily in the homes of others walking from town to town to do Gospel ministry?  Or do they live in unimagined wealth by the standards of the poor of this world (although not by the standards of our wealthy consumerist materialistic resource destroying wealthy nation)?  Is our personal concern the price of gas at the pump, our home fuel bill, the costs at the grocery stories, our budgets for next year and whether we get a raise or cost of living increase, and the drop in the Dow - or is our economic concern actual survival?  Living green in the US is not the same as being one of the poor of the world so how does one rip into the church's failure when one is so complicit in it?  I am just asking.  And thus the whole the church looks at sex as it looks at wealth thing totally escapes me unless asked by a itinerant celebate because otherwise it sounds like special pleading and special interest proof texting.  And I am afraid to say that because it is bad form and I will considered a bad person as I often am for appearing to be rude - but I ask in the exact same spirit and with the gentleness of love of which the same questions were asked of me, and Chris.

Vince

PS Luther's rejection of James was a huge mistake, no "may be a mistake" about it - but it does raise the question as to can any of us uphold all of the Biblical teachings (and of course the answer is clearly no).  Luther could not incorporate James into his theology, not because Luther was antiBiblical but that the lack of incorporation, the mistake, was made under the rubric of grace.  Luther did not see the grace in James.  I can only pray that my own mistakes, my own Biblical understanding failures, be as Luther's were - done under the rubric of grace.

 

On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 8:18 AM, Herb Davis <herb....@mindspring.com> wrote:

Dear Vince and Chris,  Some I think the UCC relates to sex as the prosperity
church relates to wealth.  The prosperity church finds a text that claims
God want to bless us which of course is true and turn it into an affirmation
of wealth as the sign that God is with us and all sorts of wonderful wealthy
things happened.  Texts that warn us that riches can be miss used or even
separate from God are discounted and dismissed.  We too have a tendency to
find text that support sex as a wonderful gift of God and then discount
those voices that raise questions that embarrass us.  We treat Paul as some
sort of celebrant prude that shouts out ugly nasty comments about some
sexual practices because he is arrogant or sick or has some special
restricted gift rather than to understand that his teaching on sex is
probably well integrated into this understanding of the canonical tradition
which includes Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Leviticus, Romans,
Corinthians.  He is writing as a Christian Jew who rejects the sexuality of
Greeks which included long term same gender relationships.  All these voices
are really counter culture, They may give us a better understanding of our
selves if we can hear them.   If we discount or dismiss those texts that are
embarrassing to our culture o.k.  Our culture really thinks we are brighter
and better in understanding these thing but at least we should know what we
are rejecting and maybe affirming, rather than dismissing a voice that some
believed to be authoritative.   We all do this, Luther loved Paul but
dismissed James which may have been a mistake.  I just think we should be
careful with canonical texts.  Peace, Herb
---> >

[Willis Elliott]

Thanks, Andy.

1

"Circumstances alter cases," & many churches have altered the cases of divorce & liturgical remarriage.  You make a convincing case for liturgical recognition of same-sex covenantal unions (distinct from "marriage," which is hetero only).

2

Earlier today, I had occasion to restudy everything in the Gospels on divorce, which Jesus renounced for reasons easy to surmise: (1) In Palestine (unlike in the Hellenistic world), it discriminated against women: only men could initiate  divorce; (2) Jewish marriage being thus patriarchal rather than partnership, the (male) right to divorce was commonly abused, husbands easily ridding themselves of no-longer-wanted wives, who had a legal status closer to property than to personhood; (3) ejected wives were thrown into a society in which they had few options for survival; (4) the ease with which husbands could change wives debased the institution of marriage as the basic God-given human covenant, reflecting God's faithful covenant with humanity.  /  As the gospel moved into the wider (the Hellenistic) world, Jesus' understandable rigorism was modified - a process whose beginnings are visible in the Gospels.  Without losing the biblical understanding of marriage as the basic, God-intended human covenant of permanence, some churches opened to liturgical remarriage; the UCC Book of Worship has also liturgical divorce.

3

Through the years I've praised you for protecting the word "marriage" from homo invasion, & I'm happy that on the 4th of this month California voters reversed their supreme court's invasion of it.  So I'm unhappy with your wording of "Subject" (above): could you change "Unions" to "Covenants"?

4

In the surrounding cultures of OT-&-NT communities, biblical marriage faced homosexual practices (common & liturgical) revulsive to the biblical understanding of the grounding & purposes of sexuality.  Nowhere in Scripture is there recognition of the possibility of a homosexual relationship on the model of biblical marriage, viz. covenant faithfulness reflecting the divine-human covenants.  But now, the actuality of such relationships exit, & can lay proper claim to liturgical recognition.

5

Yes, we are "created for community."  George Herbert Mead put it even more strongly: we are created in community, creation continuing in the womb of family & society.

6

I take this (on p13) to be your thetic sentence: "with the limits of our given sexuality we are always called out of isolation into community."

7

I didn't get your footnotes, & am interested in No.10: what's the source of the phrase "the eternal 'With'"?

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.4/1791 - Release Date: 11/15/2008 6:57 PM

[fc...@comcast.net]

 

3

"Through the years I've praised you for protecting the word "marriage" from homo invasion, & I'm happy that on the 4th of this month California voters reversed their supreme court's invasion of it.  So I'm unhappy with your wording of "Subject" (above): could you change "Unions" to "Covenants"?"  Willis

 

Willis,

Andy inherited the phrase that developed from Herb asking for a biblical defense of gay unions and I wrote the above heading using the Ecclesiates text. In other words Andy had nothing to do with the title of this thread. I think his paper is worthy of study and would recommend that we start a new thread, appoint a leader and serious begin to study his work.

 

Chris Anderson

[Willis Elliott]

Thanks, Chris.

Andy asked for a thread on his paper, & I started one.

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

----- Original Message -----

From: fc...@comcast.net

To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 9:03 AM

Subject: Re: A Biblical Argument for Unions: straight, gay or platonic

 

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com

Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.4/1794 - Release Date: 11/17/2008 8:48 AM

[rjeasleasland]

Willis: I have not heard you comment in speculative form about what you might think the theology of our new President -elect might be. I just finished Gabes book on Neibuhr and after watching Obama for tell tale signs, Gabe seems to have something in assuming that Obama may have grown from Neibuhr's teachings. The last interview on 60 min. did show a man that seems unusually humble considering the level of accomplishment. If America has now ended its Imperial drive as you hope what will be its main role in the global community and what will be its witness for Christ? One of your e-mails was so despairing concerning our gluttonus appetites and un-godly treatment and consumption of the creation. Do you see the consuming of the earths goodness in resources etc. as a mark of the Second Coming in some apaclyptic fashion or do you still hold out hope that the Light of Christ within humanity can reverse the present trend toward self destruction? If our hope is only in the eschaton can we work to make a better world for tomorrow without tiredness and loss of hope in the world for our grandchildren? Can our all ready but not yet sense of the Kingdom sustain us if things get lots and lots worse than we think? I know you love to stay in a text and roam all around in its truth but having faced so much mortality in your life, how has your view of the future changed over your ministry?  Or are these just useless speculative questions, rather should we be leaving all in Gods hands by faith and just concentrating on living in His presence with joy and contemplation? What do you think  is the most "failed" theology of the Church? I could go back and read your book but I must admit to the sin of sloth. Thanksgiving always for your most remarkable energy and constant teaching ministry. It is a beautiful and quiet day here just about everything is at winters rest. Blessings Roger

[John Cedarleaf]

Roger,

There is in my Swedish Pietist past an old hymn, "We Wait for a Great
and Glorious Day".originally written in Swedish by A.L. Skoog and
translated by him into English.
The last verse says: WE KNOW NOT THE DAY, WE KNOW NOT THE HOUR, WHEN
SOUNDS THE LAST TRUMP SO CLEAR; BUT LOUD RINGS A CRY FROM TRUTH'S LOFTY
TOWER, THE DAY OF THE LORD IS NEAR. We live between the times, as I
think Barth said a long time ago, and we live in a world where sin is
real. We can despair and wait for the day of the Lord, as some have
done, or we can on the other hand assume that it is all up to us. I go,
as I usually do, for the middle position, which is we know that the
times are in God's hands and the kingdom will come but in the meantime
we seek to live as kingdom people in the here and now. This recognizes
the ironies we live with or power and love and all the things that
Niebuhr spoke of so long ago and which I think Obama understands very
well. He is a nuanced figure and this is what makes him so attractive to
me, at least. As we seek to live kingdom lives as best we can, we do so
as you say with joy and contemplation.

As on the plains, so also in Western New York, it is a quiet day with
our first snow on the ground and the sky a Western New York gray(until
next April!)

Blessings,

John

> *From:* Willis Elliott <mailto:elli...@charter.net>
> *To:* Confessi...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:Confessi...@googlegroups.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, November 17, 2008 2:30 PM
> *Subject:* Re: A Biblical Argument for Unions: straight, gay or

> platonic
>
> Thanks, Chris.
> Andy asked for a thread on his paper, & I started one.
>
> Grace and peace--
> Willis
>
> ----- Original Message -----

> *From:* fc...@comcast.net <mailto:fc...@comcast.net>
> *To:* Confessi...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:Confessi...@googlegroups.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, November 17, 2008 9:03 AM
> *Subject:* Re: A Biblical Argument for Unions: straight, gay

> or platonic
>
>
> 3
>
> "Through the years I've praised you for protecting the
> word "marriage" from homo invasion, & I'm happy that on
> the 4th of this month California voters reversed their

> supreme court's invasion of it. *_So I'm unhappy with
> your wording of "Subject" (above)_*: could you change

> "Unions" to "Covenants"?" Willis
>
> Willis,
> Andy inherited the phrase that developed from Herb asking
> for a biblical defense of gay unions and I wrote the above
> heading using the Ecclesiates text. In other words Andy
> had nothing to do with the title of this thread. I think
> his paper is worthy of study and would recommend that we
> start a new thread, appoint a leader and serious begin to
> study his work.
>
> Chris Anderson
>
>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

[steveswope57]

I'm quite taken with this, Andy, more than the discussion on the
Ecclesiastes passage (which, in my opinion, is only tangentially and
not directly related to the issue of same-gender marriage/union/
covenant/whatever-you-choose). I think the theological arguments are
consistent and helpful.

My disappointment, and it is one of long-standing in this debate, is
that there are few explicit Biblical references. I say that, because
I believe that in this debate perhaps as no other, the best (only?)
hope for successfully challenging opponents of same-gender
relationships is scripture. Why? Because they use it so consistently
in arguing their side, and because it is how they conceptualize the
terms of debate. If same-gender supporters cannot trade verse for
verse, we will not be talking in a language that opponents credit.

I sense something already of a midrashic character to the Ecclesiastes
argument, as well as in Andy's paper. And I'm sure that scriptural
assumptions underlie the theology. How can they be made explicit?

On Nov 16, 1:46 am, Andy Lang <lango...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Since this topic has come up, Herb asked a few months ago if there was interest in discussing my paper from the "Covenant and Sexuality" conference at Andover Newton and Hebrew College in June. At the time, it wasn't available online, but now is athttp://www.ants.edu/pdf/AndrewLangCovenantSexualitypaper.pdf.

>
> Andy Lang
> Cleveland, OH
> 216-926-6262

> lango...@sbcglobal.nethttp://i.UCC.orghttp://langohio.blogspot.com
>
> ________________________________
> From: rjeasleasland <jeasl...@pie.midco.net>

> ---> >- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Andy,

Your paper is very interesting.

I would point out that the central and definitive covenant is Jesus
Christ, of Him alone may we say, "Covenant: God's bridge to humanity"
p.4 (and, we may add, humanity's bridge to God). Therefore, every
other covenental relationship is worthy of the word "covenant" or
covenental only insofar as it bears witness to him: e.g. baptismal
practices and vows. Indeed, we discern the call of God as that form of
commanded covenental action which will bear witness to him; e.g. the
witchs' use of "coven" is a misappropriation of the word.

Which brings me to homo and hetero sexuality. There is absolutely no
indication in the bible that sexual intercourse outside the covenant
of a male and female in marriage is a covenental act, i.e. an act that
bears witness to Jesus Christ. Quite the contrary! Such intercourse is
infidelity to the covenants of friendship, marriage and neighborliness
that are to characterize the covenant community that bears witness to
God's covenant with humanity in Jesus Christ.

As far as some of your other points: the community of chastity
(including celebacy) would be called friendship; the need for wedding
vows, let alone friendship vows is somewhat suspect (e.g. in an
Orthodox wedding the couple says nothing, but does pray with the
priest and congregation).

God bless!

Jim Link

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[Willis Elliott]

Roger:

 

What a flurry of questions sprouts from within you during "winter's rest"!  I'll briefly bless each sprout.  Meanwhile, please don't ride your horse on ice & fall off again or anything like that.

 

My responses are numbered from my inserted () in your post.

(1)

I remember the look in Niebuhr's eyes when asked a question he decided to think about (which was seldom: he usually started answering almost before the questioner finished asking).  Obama has that look, & we the people can see him thinking.  I hope we never elect a president we can't see thinking.  /  As for humility, Obama's ego is his servant (in my opinion, even moreso than in Niebuhr's case) rather than his lord: he is at peace with himself (& his Lord, the Lord Jesus Christ), & - when questioned - is more into his thinking than into himself.  /  As to his theology, in my current "On Faith" column I describe it as "orthodox open" - but we shall see.

(2)

At least while Obama is in the Oval Office, no more "imperial drive."  Military toughness (as in keeping Gates on for at least a year), but without military bravado & profligacy.  Excellent organizer that he is, I expect Obama to get Osama.  /  As you've heard from me more than once, God offers humanity the choice of humility or humiliation: either way, a gate of new life opens.  The world would have groaned at a McCain victory; it continues its amazed celebration of the Obama victory.  I pray & expect that America's "main role in the global community" will be as a moderator of conflicts & generator of hopes - a role conformable to the gospel (far more than our former military & financial might) & indirectly a "witness for Christ."  Further, the world will be less inclined to suspicion that Christian missionaries are American-imperial spies & first-wave invaders.

(3)

I must convert your "or" question into an "and" question.  What comes first to mind is John Wesley's response when asked why, if he trusted God to bring in the kingdom, he worked so hard to do it himself.  "ON YOUR KNEES: Pray as though it all depends on God.  ON YOUR FEET: Work as though it all depends on you."  The Lord's Prayer forbids our giving up hope for the kingdom "come on earth, as it is in heaven": no "Left Behind" apocalyptic cop-out on earth-hope.

That petition is both blue (heaven) & green (earth).  I do believe that somehow God will intervene (call it "the Second Coming") before our species has completed its present-course browning of earth's greenness.  The "sustainablility" ideal is an impossible dream at the present rate of world Americanization.  Our son Bill, teaching in Guiyang U. (in China), is amazed at the rapidity of his surround's changing in the American-consumption direction.

America leads in consumption: I pray America will come to lead in conservation.

(4)

No.  At the present rate of desertification, water-&-soil pollution, & resources exhaustion (especially soil-&-waterlife depletion), earth's impoverishment is exponentially threatening truly human life.  If humanity does not respond to divine invitations to reverse this direction, I believe that that "not yet" will disappear: God will say "Enough!"  What is now happening to the earth God created "good" (seven times in the Bible's first chapter!) reminds me of God's having given up hope for us, all our thoughts & imaginings being "consistently and totally evil" (Gn.6.5), so he decided to cure the earth of us: he drowned everybody except one family (chap.7).  This "final solution" renewed the earth (Hebrew, tikkun) by giving it opportunity to recover from its disease (that would be, us).  (99% of all species are extinct: our species extinction would be in the 1%.)  That scenario has at least the virtue of taking, with ultimate seriousness, our species increasing threat to the goodness of the good earth.

(5)

Since your question associates "mortality" & "future," I assume you're asking how my view of the afterlife has "changed" over the years of my ministry.  As my conversation in 1935 brought to me the heart-&-mind assurance of God's forgiving love & abiding Presence here & hereafter, my personal afterlife-view hasn't changed: I anticipate that in death, I'll walk into the arms of God.  /  As for my pictorial view of the afterlife, metaphors have faded to the degree that relationships have brightened.  Asked recently in class by a retired judge where heaven is, I replied first that heaven is home, & home is where my Father in heaven is.  And to make my point sharper, I said "Home for me is wherever Loree is.  Wherever on the earth I've been without her, I've been away from home: wherever she's been with me, I've been home.  /  As for the destiny of the rejecters of Jesus as Lord & Savior, I have become more cautious, more modest, less willing to judge (in light of the Bible's confining judgment to God; e.g., Mt.7.1).  But I witness the gospel that Jesus is God come among us as one of us, for our salvation from "sin, death, and the devil"; & that all human beings will confront him as Judge (e.g., Phil.2).  /  But the metaphors, though faded, have not disappeared.  In the sense that they are still present to my mind & imagination, I believe in the three-level (heaven/earth/hell) universe & the apocalyptic rhetoric thereof.  When reading the Bible's last book, I experience it & believe it as what it claims to be (in its first three Greek words), "An Unveiling of Jesus Christ," so I have no problem suspending disbelief in its dramaturgic details.  Think how the great hymns gives us wings to fly, for comfort & strength now, into God's future & our future with God!  Where do those hymns get those wings to give us?  From the biblical metaphors they are carriers of.  /  Life here & hereafter is a divine gift each human being has the choice of receiving as "grace" (which means both gift & thanksgiving for it) or of rejecting.  God does not force on us the gift of life; if we ultimately say we don't want it, we cease to have it (in the imagery of the NT author "John," we "perish" [Jn.3.16] into the oblivion & nonexistence of darkness.  Rhetoric is speech demanding decision, & apocalyptic is its most graphic mode: decide right & you're blessed forever in heaven, decide wrong & you're cursed (& tortured!) forever in hell.  Jesus rubs it in by saying there's "a great gulf fixed" against changing your decision, & "few" will find the way.  (The latter is in the severity mode of Noah's flood.)  Gerald Heard's evangelical parents in England took "few" literally, & he abandoned the religion of having so severe a deity, until - after a career in science, including 20 years as science head of BCC (including during WW2) - he returned to become a master of prayer (his "Preface to Prayer" being his best-known work in this field).  The week I spent with him, I remember his sadness over so much of the Christian world's literal reading of apocalyptic rhetoric.  /  Divine wrath/judgment/punishment is Love in scowling mode, Love necessarily taking Holiness seriously.  Our UCC Statement of Faith says God "seeks in holy love to save all...."  But "ya can't will 'em all": Love can't force love. Thus the moral dimension of the afterlife.  I believe that after earthly death, we must deal with the consequences of our decisions in this life; looking, if we are penitent & open to grace, toward participation in the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, who at history's end comes (as the creeds say) "to judge the living and the dead."  /  And I believe in the communal dimension of the afterlife, commuinio sanctorum, the communion of saints gathered around the Throne of the slain-&-risen Lamb; & that it will include those who - whether or not aware of Love in the full Christian sense - have lived loving lives.  Of the latter contingent, first to come to mind is Abraham Joshua Heschel, with whom I had eye-to-eye conversation (as did Niebuhr, on whose latest years Heschel had a major influence).

(6)

There are no "useless speculative questions."  Questioning is a gift of God, & without it we'd never bump into the More Real in conscious or unconscious pursuit of the Most Real.  We are enjoined to "pray without ceasing," & this (which you call "leaving all in God's hand's by faith and just concentrating on living in His presence with joy and contemplation") is not a socalled spiritual alterative to worldly pursuit: they are meant to be companions.

We each have, by imperfections of nature & by sin, distorted consciousnesses.  A particular distortion of mine is worry: I'm a worry-wart.  But when I fall into worry for myself or others, my companion jerks the arm of my mind to remind me that - for me & for those persons for whom I'm worrying & praying - "underneath are the Everlasting Arms."  And I am instantly returned to peace & joy.

(7)

I've often said that the main thing you need to spell English is courage.  Now, here, I need the courage to say what pops into my head as "the most 'failed' theology of the Church."  Lesseeee.... Here goes: The theology of humble faith.

"Humble faith" is an oxymoron & an ox team.  Yesterday, on a walk in a Kearney park, Loree, son Mark (here from Cape Cod for Thanksgiving), & I came upon a dwarf horse grazing next to a tiny donkey, a beautiful pair of equal size - but of course you can't yoke a horse & a donkey (but maybe you've tried, Roger?).  I said, "Watching these animals gives peace to the human soul."  But humily & faith seem even worse misfits than horses & donkeys.  The concomitance of faith (which can expand to the arrogance of overconfidence) & humility (which can contract into self-depreciation, dejection, inaction) is a miracle.  The most failed theology of the Church is in the failure to conceptualize the yoking of holy modesty with holy boldness vis-a-vis the biblical understanding of deity.

 

Today is Thanksgiving!  God knows our hearts.

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: rjeasleasland

To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 3:34 PM

Subject: Re: A Biblical Argument for Unions: straight, gay or platonic

Willis: I have not heard you comment in speculative form about (1)what you might think the theology of our new President -elect might be. I just finished Gabe's book on Niebuhr and after watching Obama for tell tale signs, Gabe seems to have something in assuming that Obama may have grown from Niebuhr's teachings. The last interview on 60 min. did show a man that seems unusually humble considering the level of accomplishment. (2) If America has now ended its Imperial drive as you hope, what will be its main role in the global community and what will be its witness for Christ? (3) One of your e-mails was so despairing concerning our gluttonus appetites and un-godly treatment and consumption of the creation. Do you see the consuming of the earths goodness in resources etc. as a mark of the Second Coming in some apocalyptic fashion or do you still hold out hope that the Light of Christ within humanity can reverse the present trend toward self destruction? If our hope is only in the eschaton can we work to make a better world for tomorrow without tiredness and loss of hope in the world for our grandchildren? (4) Can our already-but-not-yet sense of the Kingdom sustain us if things get lots and lots worse than we think? (5) I know you love to stay in a text and roam all around in its truth; but having faced so much mortality in your life, how has your view of the future changed over your ministry?  (6) Or are these just useless speculative questions, rather should we be leaving all in Gods hands by faith and just concentrating on living in His presence with joy and contemplation? (7) What do you think  is the most "failed" theology of the Church? I could go back and read your book but I must admit to the sin of sloth. Thanksgiving always for your most remarkable energy and constant teaching ministry. It is a beautiful and quiet day here just about everything is at winter's rest. Blessings, Roger

[rjeasleasland]

Brother/Father:------- and I thought Thanksgiving dinner was goooood!!  Your #7 was the most delicate and the most vivid dessert from your table EVER! The rest of your meal of course not only  tased good but had that firm substance that satisfies and nourishes!! All your entree's over the years have added to the body building necessity. Spirit food for thought satisfies much longer than the snack foods of the world which look and taste good but will take the body straight to ruin. Not that the table would be bare without your well seasoned fare but eating would have been much less interesting and alive. Keep cooking up these delights from Grandpa's house-----everybody that knows Grandpa loves Grandpa!!!!  It does my wind swept heart good that you dwell out here on the prairie with your love Loree!! Rich and satisfying love in the Lord Jesus Christ----Roger

----- Original Message -----

From: Willis Elliott

To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com

[rjeasleasland]

All: Who else would please comment on Willis Elliott's statement: "The most failed theology of the Church is in the failure to conceptualize the yoking of holy modesty with holy boldness vis-a-vis the biblical understanding of deity". a prairie challenge from roger---------bless your digestion

----- Original Message -----

From: Willis Elliott

To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 12:18 PM

Subject: Roger Easland questions during S.Dakota's "winter's rest"

[rjeasleasland]

Willis: On #7, yes I have and it almost drove me crazy----better to walk in one phase at a time as best you can without becoming so theologically bi-polar you are stunned into a catatonic state. There is a healthy cycle to be had, no doubt you have arrived, almost. Winters rest is good, all that potential about to erupt in a few short months! Grace from the prairie, peace in our hearts at Advent-------Roger

----- Original Message -----

From: Willis Elliott

To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 12:18 PM

Subject: Roger Easland questions during S.Dakota's "winter's rest"

[Willis Elliott]

I don't get your post, Roger.

"Yes I have" what?  What almost drove you crazy?

I need help: can't see how your response is to my (7).

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com

Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.10/1815 - Release Date: 11/27/2008 9:02 AM

[rjeasleasland]

Willis: Holding the Lion of the Tribe of Judah in tension with the Lamb that was slain, the fear of the Lord in tension with amazing Grace, the Law and the Gospel working in unison/tension, saint/sinner dicotomy, avoiding cosmic dualism. You hit the nerve of myself in naming the two dangers; faith expanded into the arrogance of overconfidence on the one hand and humility contracted into self-depreciation, dejection, inaction on the other. I have fallen prey to both forms of unhealth. This time off has shown me how I have been on both of these poles at times. You have overcome both in your teaching ministry and life. I realize that my personal failures are not the same as the failures of the Church but only as we name the "truth" of God applied to self can we hope to preach, teach, and pray the health of God to others. You speack health to me Willis, thanks again----Roger

[gdeme...@msn.com]

Roger,
 
You're far from alone in the difficulties in holding these poles together
 
Best,
 
George

---

[rjeasleasland]

George: Thanks, I think I may have some sense of what others experience in times when the desert swallows us up in personal trial. You are going through some of that from the sound of some of your recent posts. Since this is dawing us together in the Spirit, I will pray for you. Right now I seem in the firm grip of grace once again. Blessings on your hard thinking work--------Roger  P.S. I just returned from the State Capital where local ranchers brought 9 horse drawn wagons to give rides around the Capital complex. I had the honor of driving one of the teams---fabulous beyond words. We are guests in a beautiful world! To God be all glory!!!!!  From the prairie.

[rjeasleasland]

Best of Brothers: Strange that you should mention a team of horses, I just came back from driving a beautiful team of Belgians around the Capital complex! I have not ventured to climb fools hill again getting bucked off on frozen ground like I did last year, boy that was stupid, I was black and blue from my arm pit to where the sun don't shine, my ribs hurt so bad I couldn't hardly get out of bed for a month. I traded the horse to the North American Champion all around Indian Cowboy, Rolly Wilson, later I did his wedding in Bowman North Dakota at a community center, 400 western types showed up, it was a Jim Dandy for sure. That little yellow horse was one of the tuffest horses he has ever rode he says. I raised him from a colt and hoped I was cowboy enough to train him---bad idea. I traded up instead into a 6 yr. old grey guilding called Mercury and he is fabulous. We team rope off him and then the grandkids ride him all over, even our three year old grandson can handle him. That little yellow horse is now a calf roping horse in the PRCA. Too much horse for this old boy. Thanks for standing by when I wrestle with God out loud. I hope we see a real resurgence of spiritual life with calm brains in the White House! We need a time of normalcy and healing. That wonderful family just might be our model. Wish you and Loree could have been here for a wagon ride!  Blessings from stock horse loving country, Roger

----- Original Message -----

From: Willis Elliott

To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 12:18 PM

[Janet Keyes]

Roger-

Your P.S. gave me a smile.  Here in Massachusetts we see no convoys of horse-drawn wagons.  Reminded me of how excited the Antique Truck Club members were last year as part of a large convoy taking the National Christmas tree from Maine to D.C. My husband is a member but does not participate in long-journey adventures (his truck is for income-producing work, not for fun.) But horses were his first love, and the horse-drawn wagon group would have really tempted him. I'm glad you had the blessing of participating. (Maybe my husband will retire some day and get to do some fun stuff, like having horses again- but he's only 72 and enjoying his third career.)

Janet

----- Original Message -----

From: rjeasleasland

To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Friday, November 28, 2008 5:34 PM

Subject: Re: Roger Easland questions during S.Dakota's "winter's rest"

[rjeasleasland]

Janet: Smile indeed, I hope I do not find that third career, I am enjoying the sacred luxury of waiting on the Lord for what he might have me do next! A draft horse may be in my future!!!  Blessings in Advents power-------Roger

----- Original Message -----

From: Janet Keyes

To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com