Unity Church

[Jean Easland]

Confessors:+++Who out there has had an encounter with a Unity Church "evangelist"? We have one here who wants to join our Ministerial Association and get a "church" started. We at least have a simple statement on the affirmation of the Trinity. We are going to upgrade our confession since our last encounter with Moonies and Mormons in 2002. Anyone else been there done that? Let me know. +++If you have not taken a bunch of 12-14 yr. old on a weekend outing in the last few years------WOW-- growing up fast in America is an understatement!+++ Blessings all around+++Roger

[Thomas Dean]

One thing I do know is that if the reference is to the Unity School of Christianity, they do not affirm the Trinity.  Tom

[Gail Miller]

From the Unity Church website....

 

http://www.unity.org/about-us/our-philosophy

 

 

 

Gail Miller, Pastor
Union Congregational Church
Groton, MA
978-448-2091
www.uccgroton.org

[Janet Keyes]

From a 30-second look at the website, I have the impression that they might be sort of a hybrid of New Age, Unitarian, and maybe a dollop of Christian Science, etc.  Maybe others can read the website with more patience?

Janet

[Herb Davis]

Sermon Note: May 13, Easter VI, Mothers Day, John 15:9-17

 

Recently I was with some clergy and one said, “I love every member of my congregation.”  “That’s great”, responded another, “just so you don’t have any real friends in the congregation.”  This text defines love in the terms of friendship. “This the the command that you love one another as I have loved you.  No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.” v.12-13  The love of friendship is not paternal love.  It is not the love of a good king or political party that desires the will being of the citizens.  It is not the love that comes from a faithful servant who has been blessed by a kind master.  Friendship love is the love between equals, the love of one for another. 

 

We don’t talk about friendship love much today.  It is evened rumored that most people don’t have many close friends.  Polls seem to indicate that few have friends with whom they can share their deepest hopes and fears.  A great many American follow Jesus but don’t know anyone they can trust to know their joys and sorrow, victories and defeats.

 

Friendship love is a strange way of understanding love.  The love of friend does not exist between servant and master, professional and clients.  Jesus say, “I do not call you servant any longer, because the servant does not know what the master is doing;  but I have called you friends because I have made known to you everything that I have heard from my Father.” v.15 

 

Friends have no secretes between them. There are no hidden agendas.  A friends is not a tool for another's end.  We are friends of Jesus and we know the true character and nature and relationship of not only Jesus but of God the Father.  This is a friendship based on trust.  We do not know all the details of creation.  We do not know the end of time.  We do not know the right stocks to buy or the right changes to make.  We do know there is no hidden God other than the one we see in Jesus.  We do know there are no mysterious surprises.  We do know we can trust our deepest hopes and fear to this one who give his life for us.

 

As a teen ager I always loved these scenes in B movies when  the convict was headed for the CHAIR and the clergy would walk along beside him reading PS. 23.  It always seemed clear to me that Jesus never abounded us, never walked away from us but rather climbed onto the CHAIR and into the grave with us.  What a Friend we have in Jesus.  He is loyal beyond the end.  He will not let us go.  “Nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus.”   

 

This is the new family of God for which we have been chosen.  The family where there is no king but we are friends who bear one another's burdens.  It is the family we did not chose but we have entered in our baptism.  It is the family of God, where the Fathers’ longing, command is that the children love one another freely.  This is John’s image of the church, where there is no I up there and you down there, no object of affection, no surprises, just the presence of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in the midst of the chosen living out the passion and pain of love.  To love one another is to be friends. 

 

May the Church never lose this hope.

 

Any additions or corrections?  Herb

[Jean Easland]

Dear Herb: A true masterpiece of communication! It sets the bar where it belongs for the confused church!      Roger

[Willis E. Elliott]

Herb

 

Amen to almost all you say about friendship, but you ask for "additions or corrections":

 

An ADDITION.  You don't mention friendship's dangers, on which C.S.Lewis uses considerable space in his "Friendship" chapter of THE FOUR LOVES.  (Chumminess with God I consider the greatest danger.)

 

CORRECTIONS.

1

The "friendship" in Jn.15 does not match your definition,"Friendship love is the love between equals...."  This Johannine friendship is within the lordship of our Lord (so I capitalize IF): "You are my friends IF you do what I command you" (vs.14 NRSV): equality qualified by inequality.  /   No small matter: I e-argued this one several exchanges with BBZ (Barbara Brown Zickmund) when she was president of Hartford Seminary, & the dean said "Better quit, Barbara: Willis doesn't."  (The dean was this summer's Craigville Colloquy's theme-speaker, Bill McKinney.)  

2

The Bible has little to say about "friendship" as defined in the West (Aristotle's "Philia," Cicero's "Amicitia"), but you capture love into friendship: "To love one another is to be friends."  In Lewis (op.cit.), friendship is one of the three natural loves (the others being affection & sex) - to be contrasted with the supernatural love (charity [*agape*]) the Gospel you're expositing emphasizes.  (Jn. + the three Letters has "friend" (*philos*) only 7 times, but *agap-* 38 times!)

 

AMEN to "the presence of God" the Trinity "in the midst" of Christian community.

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

 

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

From: Herb Davis

To: confessi...@googlegroups.com

Cc: Jim Chase

Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 12:48 PM

[Jean Easland]

Yah Brother Willis: We don't want Jesus to be our therapist/buddy no matter what ditzy ideas we think about God his Father. Grace abounds but so do dumb ideas about God. Blessings on you Willis+++Roger

[Herb Davis]

dear Willis,  Thank you for you additions and warning.  I know you never quit, nevertheless, I would suggest that maybe a greater danger in our time is lack of chumminess or maybe intimate relationship or maybe just deep devotion and love of God.  I think the impersonal language on the Trinity may have made God more impersonal, remote.  If the soundings we hear from culture are right it maybe a time when love or friendship is having a tough time.  I may have over stated on friendship love as equal, but there is a powerful sense in this text on not being servants, having no secretes.  I think it deeply calls us to remember God’s radical action of becoming one with us, (Word Become Flesh) Incarnation and the nature of the Trinity, three person deeply in love and have no secretes.  I hope this is more than chumminess but that maybe the danger we might live with.  Herb 

From: Willis E. Elliott

Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 11:49 PM

To: confessi...@googlegroups.com

[Jean Easland]

Dearest Herb: Yesterday I visited a Lakota boy who is up for murder 1(a gang killing on the Pine Ridge Reservation). Monday they will decide if he will be tried as an adult. I plan to go to the hearing. He has spent 6 mo. in the hold over prison here. He has been a gang member since he was 8. I asked him if he felt God was close to him or cared for him at all he said, "no".  I read  him the story of Jesus "friendship"  from John. I used some of  your words as I was a fill in at the last moment, they were so helpful in ministering to him!!! He truly believes he is innocent but is afraid he will cop a plea just to know his future. I think he is more afraid he will have to tell the truth and break the gang code of silence. If he breaks the code he says they will kill him in prison. I admonished him to ask Jesus to be his friend when he went into the courtroom and try to focus on that when the pressure comes. I don't know his mental capacity. But he mustered a smile as he left the little meeting room and said, "When I go into that courtroom I will ask Jesus to come along and be my friend". The intimacy and power of the Incarnation cannot be underestimated nor denied. This boy has known nothing but abuse, substance abuse, crime and now maybe life in jail, and a cruel death in jail.  He will not rat out his "friends" and may get life for it. Gangs exists because of the need for loyal friends. We who are so privileged must remember those children who are forced into this kind of evil are neglected by everyone. It is a breakdown of the whole culture not just Lakota people. 6 mo. in near solitary confinement at 16 is this the home of the free? Keep blasting the truth at us, your sermon notes have practical application. True friendship is a rare gift of grace we must never neglect, it's a command.+++Roger

[Jean Easland]

Herb again: I just got back from the juvenile jail. Federal confidentiality law prohibits me from going to be a support for this kid. But I did get a chance to have a heart to heart with the head jailer. What Christian love she has for these kids. The Incarnate One IS at work in his elect! Blessings+++ Roger P.S. the missionary pastor who is starting a ministry in Ft. Pierre is an X-Marine. His testimony is that God delivered him spontaneously from a $200.00 a day drug habit. Your preaching always has human application. Keeping rocking. Roger

[Herb Davis]

dear Roger,  Thanks for your kind words and for your ministry.  I am out on the fringe of things now days but I sense there is more chaos in the culture than we admit.  You are in the midst of a lot of the pain.  Its amazing that we believe God is love.  That is the basic Christian confession.  Herb

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Herb, Roger and Willis,

I think Willis is pointing to an important dimension of the text when
he asks us to think about the meaning of friendship and intimacy and
how it relates to the lord/servant relationship. Herb, the question
here is not one of personal vs. impersonal but of knowledge vs.
ignorance, of being privy to what another is doing for one, and
through one, for all. Jesus remains Lord and the apostles remain
servants even as he no longer still calls them [just] servants, for he
adds, "You are my friends, if you do what I command you." The old
saying goes, "familiarity breeds contempt," but Jesus says that in the
case of the apostles it is just the opposite, that familiarity breeds
obedient love. Jesus is our friend, but as such, so powerfully and
uniquely such, his "wish" is our "command," as another old saying
goes. That is "joy."

Jesus remains the Lord of those most familiar with him, the apostles,
and through them, to us: "You did not choose me, I choose you!" And
they and we serve his purpose: to bear fruit (back to the vine and
branches context).

If I were to define the two different "loves" of the NT that we find
here, I would say that friendship is the outward form of love, love in
its seen and visible form, for the one who is beloved friend to see.
Thus friendship is a transformative relationship, and one could say
that the most powerful lord/servant relationship is the one who lays
down his life for his friends (cf. the Good Shepherd and his sheep).

Again, knowledgeable obedience, faithful obedience, is central to love
in unity and community: "I have made known to you everything I have
heard from my Father." And, of course, in this last discourse, Jesus
announces that in his giving his life for them, his obedient heart,
and the heart of his Father, are fully revealed as a heart for them,
his friends.

Jim

[link...@aol.com]

P.S.

We also need notice the corporate dimension of personal, intimate
relationship with Jesus: he is never alone! Thus, "love one another as
I have loved you!" is at the heart of his command here. We can't be
friends of Jesus without being friends of his friends, indeed, we
can't even know him as the one who has laid down his life for us
without acknowledging all the friends for whom he has laid down his
life.

Herb, maybe our problem is not with the "personal" Lord, but the Lord
in person who is lord of these persons: the apostles and all the sorry
riff raff sitting in the pews with us listing to the word of the
prophets and the apostles, who show us the loving heart of our Lord
who laid down his life for them, and for us. The personal Lord
commands, through them!

Jim

On May 9, 9:54 pm, "Herb Davis" <herb.da...@mindspring.com> wrote:

[Jean Easland]

Brother Jim: Obedience follows love. Love is the source and the sustainer
and the power without it obedience would be a proposition without content.
God's love in Christ in the Spirit to all+++. Herb: Yes to the pain and deep
frustration of the slow, sometimes manipulative and impersonal workings of
the criminal justice system. Even though all things human are riddled with
sin, God continues to send messengers who are crazy in love with Him and
therefore with those He created in his own image. Our missionary church
planting pastor told our Cabinet, " I want my heart to break for that which
makes God's heart break", tears are a good sign that our friend Jesus is
present in our hearts, breaking them for the work of the Kingdom. You are
doing you part, have a Rolling Rock and enjoy the afternoon! Pray for our
now more divided Country. Roger

> no secretes. I think it deeply calls us to remember God�s radical action

> Recently I was with some clergy and one said, �I love every member of my
> congregation.� �That�s great�, responded another, �just so you don�t have
> any real friends in the congregation.� This text defines love in the terms
> of friendship. �This the the command that you love one another as I have
> loved you. No one has greater love than this, to lay down one�s life for
> one�s friends.� v.12-13 The love of friendship is not paternal love. It is

> not the love of a good king or political party that desires the will being
> of the citizens. It is not the love that comes from a faithful servant who
> has been blessed by a kind master. Friendship love is the love between
> equals, the love of one for another.
>

> We don�t talk about friendship love much today. It is evened rumored that
> most people don�t have many close friends. Polls seem to indicate that few

> have friends with whom they can share their deepest hopes and fears. A

> great many American follow Jesus but don�t know anyone they can trust to

> know their joys and sorrow, victories and defeats.
>
> Friendship love is a strange way of understanding love. The love of friend
> does not exist between servant and master, professional and clients. Jesus

> say, �I do not call you servant any longer, because the servant does not

> know what the master is doing; but I have called you friends because I

> have made known to you everything that I have heard from my Father.� v.15

>
> Friends have no secretes between them. There are no hidden agendas. A
> friends is not a tool for another's end. We are friends of Jesus and we
> know the true character and nature and relationship of not only Jesus but
> of God the Father. This is a friendship based on trust. We do not know all
> the details of creation. We do not know the end of time. We do not know
> the right stocks to buy or the right changes to make. We do know there is
> no hidden God other than the one we see in Jesus. We do know there are no
> mysterious surprises. We do know we can trust our deepest hopes and fear
> to this one who give his life for us.
>
> As a teen ager I always loved these scenes in B movies when the convict
> was headed for the CHAIR and the clergy would walk along beside him
> reading PS. 23. It always seemed clear to me that Jesus never abounded us,
> never walked away from us but rather climbed onto the CHAIR and into the
> grave with us. What a Friend we have in Jesus. He is loyal beyond the end.

> He will not let us go. �Nothing can separate us from the love of God in
> Christ Jesus.�

>
> This is the new family of God for which we have been chosen. The family
> where there is no king but we are friends who bear one another's burdens.
> It is the family we did not chose but we have entered in our baptism. It

> is the family of God, where the Fathers� longing, command is that the
> children love one another freely. This is John�s image of the church,

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Roger,

I am not sure that ours is "now" a "more divided country," but perhaps
the cracks are now more fully apparent, and I am sad to say that
President Obama has probably lost my vote in the coming election, in
his completed "evolution" toward promoting sexual segregation. How
very much talk there is this week in our nation about what we are not
supposed to talk about on this forum!

Jim

> > no secretes. I think it deeply calls us to remember God s radical action

> > Recently I was with some clergy and one said, I love every member of my
> > congregation. That s great , responded another, just so you don t have
> > any real friends in the congregation. This text defines love in the terms
> > of friendship. This the the command that you love one another as I have

> > loved you. No one has greater love than this, to lay down one s life for

> > one s friends. v.12-13 The love of friendship is not paternal love. It is
> > not
>
> ...
>
> read more »

[Willis E. Elliott]

Roger

 

Your "Lakota boy" experienced equality friendship in his gang & came to dire need of INequality friendship - a Good Samaritan like you, supremely like the One who told us of the Good Samaritan, the One we call the Friend of the friendless: good to help the boy think of Jesus as his friend.

 

Notice, in this case:

1

Equality is bad, inequality is good.

2

In terms of Lewis's THE FOUR LOVES, this is a case of charity (*agape"), not friendship (*philia").

3

Using friendship has proleptic value: the boy had bad friends, & imagining good friends can help.  (In my Colloquy Bible reflection on the Lord's Prayer, I said that praying to the good "Father in heaven" can help if on earth you had a bad father.  From my pastoral experience, this was my counter to the feministic proposal that having a bad father on earth should teach us to have no father in heaven.)

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

 

 

--- Original Message -----

[Jean Easland]

Brother Jim: I'm not sure about the fences of this groups discussion,
freedom of dialogue must prevail. I do think the lines on this issue will be
drawn even deeper with this endorsement. To see the destruction of the
family as we know it in my generation as the central foundation of social
order is perhaps the bigger issue. Have you planted any potatoes? You can
live on just eggs and potatoes. Blessings all around+++roger

> read more �

[Willis E. Elliott]

So sadly true, Jim.
1
Yesterday, in destroying the specific meaning of the word "marriage" & its
equivalents in the world's other languages, Obama went on the long list of
one-term persidents. His defense (in his regular online message) of what he
did never even mentions the problem; his appeals are only (1) legality (the
equal rights of citizens before the law) & (2) demographic (homo "families"
need more linguistic support).
2
I'm voting for Obama by subtraction - after subtracting the possibilities of
voting for Romney & not voting.
I hope you do the same.
3
Falsely, Obama claims it's a matter of legality. It is not: the law can be
written to grant equal rights to hetero & homo couples. It's a matter,
rather, fo dignity: the gay movement wants to move in on the simple-complex
traditional dignity of the word "marriage" - which cannot be done without
destroying this rich connotational value. (Here, I think Obama is not
deceptive but ignorant.)
4
The quote in "Subject" (above) I heard somebody out-there say yesterday when
a reporter asked for his response to Obama's having become America's first
gay-marriage president (having so-called "evolved" from what I am, viz.
gay-union).
5
Cultures & religions, as well as nations, compete. In the struggle for
respectability, sacred scriptures compete. In the West, the Bible has been
losing comparative respectability (e.g., it say something the Qur'an does
not, viz. kill homos). I have long pleaded that we are to defend the Bible,
we must be free (in it, knowing it; with it, using it; &) from it, & help it
free itself from itself (a process modeled in it). Sex & violence are the
two most challenging & urgent areas for this defense. I am appalled that
some on our Forum consider "homosex & the Bible" (as you put it) "something
we are not supposed to talk about on this forum." For present politics &
the Bible's future reputation, is there something more urgent to be talking
about?..
6
That interviewed man (in "Subject"), said he's "for the Bible," but he not:
he doesn't believe in killing homos. All Christians I know of are AGAINST
the Bible (the Levitical law to execute homos caught "in flagrante") on this
matter. I Ro.1, Paul unwittingly shows the way out of this dilemma:
wrongly, he believes homosex is essenetially unnatural. But what would he
have said about homosex if he believed (as science has convinced us) that at
least some homosex is natural even though it can't fulfil God's intention in
creating sex, viz. reproduction? That we can't know. But we do know that
"nature," seen from above, is "creation": God creates at least some homos.
Can we believe that God does not want homos to behave "that way" even though
that's the way he made them?
7
In how to read the Bible, the basic distinction (as I've said dozens of time
on ths Forum) is between what the Bible said & what the Bible says. And the
basic criterion of value is proportionality (majorly, the Bible says love
God & everybody; minorly, it says kill homos caught "in the act").
8
If our interviewee (in "Subject") had been rightly taught how to read the
Bible, he would not be facing the Obama-or-Bible false dilemma.
9
Think of the human evil & the Bible-abuse - indeed, the demonic success - in
failling to teach the people how to read the Bible! And think of the
resistances - even in our Forum! - to the right way!

> read more �

[Jean Easland]

Willis: Thanks for the ever clear wisdom. Love, Roger

[Jane Ellingwood]

Dear Willis and Jim,

This is the long-lost Jane. I have read your two emails below, but not all the others piling up from this week.  I did also read Herb's sermon notes. I always read his sermon notes every week, even though he doesn't realize that.  

I am not sure whether you include me in the folks who don't want to talk about the topics you bring up here, but I am assuming you do. So I wish to say the following to you.

1) I can't think of a more interesting and relevant thing to talk about in this forum right now than our various perspectives on President Obama's new position and the vote in North Carolina this week, and the upcoming election. I would also love to talk about the Bible and how we handle the discussions with our congregations, without getting polarized either on the issues about marriage and full rights for LGBTQ folks, or polarized on divisions between Democrats vs. Republicans.  I am engaged in discussions with members of my local congregation, and I am very interested in this.

2) To be frank with you, perhaps in my own form of Willis's frankness, the part I am against is when the two of you never stop, and one or both of you keep going at the other over and over again.  That part is not only not pleasant to read, it's also not effective.  

3) I'd like to talk about reading the Bible. I like Willis's ideas on the Bible.  Most of all, though, I'd like to hear how we can make this relevant and help conduct civil and Christian discussions with others in our congregations, including helping them read the Bible too.

4) I am in complete support of President Obama's statement yesterday and I fully support same gender marriage. I have for quite some time now.  I disagree with both of you on this point, for many and various reasons, which I'd be happy to discuss.  

5) What I am in complete NON-support of is what is happening on Facebook with people I know who are in support of same sex marriage, and who condemn those who vote against it, and call them bigots and post inflammatory statements.   A lot of members of my congregation are on Facebook together, and there have been hurt feelings. One person felt that he was being treated as if he was a bigot and a hateful person, because his view is "love the sinner, hate the sin."  He hasn't even been allowed to take part in any discussions.

6) So last night, after I thought about all of my personal Facebook friends and family members who have different feelings about theses issues, many of whom are from my church, and some of whom are relatives and friends of mine (not from my church) who are in same gender marriages or relationships, I posted this Facebook posting:

'I would second for myself personally what President Obama said today: "at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married." It is also equally important for me to affirm that I do not believe that my family and friends who disagree with me are bigots or evil or are not people of God or good Christians, if they are Christians.'

I already know that the above Facebook posting does not satisfy my liberal friends, one of whom is having dinner with me tonight and is planning to tell me why these folks are in fact bigots, and why I was wrong in saying that they are not.  I am sure my friends and family members who are in same gender relationships will also not be pleased with my half-way position. But I also do not like to see members of my congregation condemned, when they are serious individuals who are active Christians, and who hold opposite views to the current liberal views. I believe that all members of my congregation should be welcome, no matter who they are and where they are on life's journey, and that that welcome extends not just to those who are traditionally marginalized, but also to those who hold different opinions than I do on major issues.  It even includes those who vote for the other party in the polls!  :-0)  And there is no doubt at all that I will be voting again for President Obama in the fall, and I do not agree that he is a one-term candidate.  

Jane

[ericbr...@comcast.net]

Dear Jane,

 

This is where the ELCA has gotten it so right. There are strong beliefs (not opinions, but beliefs) about this issue, both of which are based in scripture. What the ELCA has said is that there is room for all at the table as long as we have at the core the truth that for us, Jesus Christ is Lord.

 

That many have left the ELCA over this is sad and disheartening. That many have joined the ELCA because of this is joyful and uplifting. That the Church remains true to its core belief in the putting itself under Jesus Christ is what we Christians should be about--and living within a daily struggle of what that means for us on our pilgrim journey.

 

While there is more to write on this subject, I think the core I wish to put out there is how the ELCA handled this and that how it did was to look at the history of its predecessor church bodies (well, at least the Norwegian predecessor bodies) and the justification controversies of the mid 19th century to come up with a way to join most of us. Lest folks believe this has not worked this time because some have left the church, I would state that some left the church then by forming the Little Norway Synod (now ELS), however now more are joining the church than they did after the resolution of the justification controversy, so it has been even more successful.

 

Peace,

Eric

 

---

[Jean Easland]

Dear Jane: I agree with your number 2. Thanks for your honest, genereous comments in the rest of your post. I don't expect to participate in the discussion and I hope other topics do not get neglected because of the consuming fire that can take over. Gratefully+++Roger

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

From: Jane Ellingwood

To: confessi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 1:28 PM

Subject: Re: "I was for Obama, but I'm for the Bible." -Willis is for both.

[Herb Davis]

Dear Jim, Thanks for your addition of obedience. I was wondering what the
relationship between loyalty and obedience? I also am grateful for the note
on the riff raff in the pew" who hear how gracious and mericful and loving
ourGod is, which brought me back to Willis concern about Chumminess. I do
get carried away with this text and feel o.k. about it with you and other
around to reel me in. Yet the Incarnation I think is God's Chumminess to
us. The power and glory of Jesus in John is balanced by the image of the
one who washes the disciples feet, who reminds us the first is servant of
all. There can be no chumminess on our part if we remember we have been
chosen. We did not elect Jesus because of his righteousness. he elected
us, the riff raff who sit in the pews. The worse of spirituality maybe a
sign of our chumminess with God, our cozying up to God, our seeking Him. In
doing so we often avoid the riff raff in the pews. Thanks again. Herb

-----Original Message-----
From: link...@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 8:02 AM
To: Confessing Christ Open Forum

> no secretes. I think it deeply calls us to remember God�s radical action

> Recently I was with some clergy and one said, �I love every member
> of my congregation.� �That�s great�, responded another, �just so you don�t
> have any real friends in the congregation.� This text defines love in the
> terms of friendship. �This the the command that you love one another as I
> have loved you. No one has greater love than this, to lay down one�s life

> for one�s friends.� v.12-13 The love of friendship is not paternal love.

> It is not the love of a good king or political party that desires the will
> being of the citizens. It is not the love that comes from a faithful
> servant who has been blessed by a kind master. Friendship love is the
> love between equals, the love of one for another.
>

> We don�t talk about friendship love much today. It is evened
> rumored that most people don�t have many close friends. Polls seem to

> indicate that few have friends with whom they can share their deepest

> hopes and fears. A great many American follow Jesus but don�t know anyone

> they can trust to know their joys and sorrow, victories and defeats.
>
> Friendship love is a strange way of understanding love. The love of
> friend does not exist between servant and master, professional and

> clients. Jesus say, �I do not call you servant any longer, because the

> servant does not know what the master is doing; but I have called you
> friends because I have made known to you everything that I have heard from

> my Father.� v.15

>
> Friends have no secretes between them. There are no hidden agendas.
> A friends is not a tool for another's end. We are friends of Jesus and we
> know the true character and nature and relationship of not only Jesus but
> of God the Father. This is a friendship based on trust. We do not know
> all the details of creation. We do not know the end of time. We do not
> know the right stocks to buy or the right changes to make. We do know
> there is no hidden God other than the one we see in Jesus. We do know
> there are no mysterious surprises. We do know we can trust our deepest
> hopes and fear to this one who give his life for us.
>
> As a teen ager I always loved these scenes in B movies when the
> convict was headed for the CHAIR and the clergy would walk along beside
> him reading PS. 23. It always seemed clear to me that Jesus never
> abounded us, never walked away from us but rather climbed onto the CHAIR
> and into the grave with us. What a Friend we have in Jesus. He is loyal

> beyond the end. He will not let us go. �Nothing can separate us from the
> love of God in Christ Jesus.�

>
> This is the new family of God for which we have been chosen. The
> family where there is no king but we are friends who bear one another's
> burdens. It is the family we did not chose but we have entered in our

> baptism. It is the family of God, where the Fathers� longing, command is
> that the children love one another freely. This is John�s image of the

[Herb Davis]

Dear Jim, Jane, Roger, Willis, Eric and others,  I was pro Obama for president  before yesterday and for Obama for president today, not because I agree with him, but because this is a difficult issue for some and I think for Obama.  I disagree with him on a number of issues but like Willis I vote and the other party does not do it for me.  Some of us have not at this time been lead by the Holy Spirit to accept homosexual of their terms, which demands among other  demands same sex marriage.  At the same time lets remember Paul seemed to see married folks as second class citizens in the Church.  I also should say that some of us have been seen as bigots in the UCC for many years.  It is difficult when you see clearly  not assume that those who disagree are either stupid, sick, or sinful.  I pray that the Lutherans have done a better job.  Recently the president of the Mass Conf UCC in celebrating the presidents announcement reminded all that the Mass Conf was a leader in OandA.  He never mentioned that some brothers and sisters disagree.  Our salvation is not in our goodness, our sexuality, our right reading of history but in our baptism our dying with Christ.  I also don’t agree with Willis that there is a right reading of scripture.  I think there are readings that come out of traditions and for that tradition it is the right reading.      Herb

From: Jean Easland

Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 3:16 PM

To: confessi...@googlegroups.com

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Jane,

Go for it. I've said already what I have to say, and no one has
indicated otherwise: the Bible bears witness to God's intent that
males and females be in fellowship. That's how I read the Bible.
Perhaps I am wrong. Show me.

Jim

[Herb Davis]

Roger, Interesting oped in NYT by N. Kristof on Indian reservation in SD.
If you can't get it I am sure someone can send it to you if interested.
Herb

[Jane Ellingwood]

Here you go. Here's the link to Kristof's piece, which I too found very interesting. In fact, I was thinking about Roger too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/opinion/kristof-povertys-poster-child.html?_r=1&hp

The NY Times charges these days, so you may or may not be able to access that link. I pay a monthly fee for digital access.

Jane

__________________________________________

[Hugh Graham]

Dear Willis,

There are times that I read you postings and appreciate and value your wisdom, there are other times that I despair!  I despair that you are mired in that 'wisdom' and cannot see beyond its intricacies, and what arises out of it can be hurtful, offensive, and ignorant.  There is also on occasion (and I appreciate the context from which I say this including being the other side of the Atlantic) an underlying, perhaps unconscious, assumption that your situation is the normative one.

This is an occasion on which I despair.  Sad that perhaps you cannot appreciate that to allow gay and lesbian people to 'marry' may actually add to the richness and depth of marriage, rather than detract from it.  Sad that you do not understand that in the past it has been your use of language and argumentation (amongst others) that has turned people against discussing the subject of sexuality and scripture on this forum. Sad that you use this language in the context of Scripture here, in a way that I can only disagree with.

I will be away from internet contact for the next week or so, and therefore cannot engage but I am sure I will return to some interesting posts.

I continue to hope to learn from your wisdom, but here and now can only despair.

Hugh Graham 

To: "Confessing Christ Open Forum" <confessing-christ@googlegroups.com>

> To: confessing-christ@googlegroups.com

read more »

[Willis E. Elliott]

Jane

 

Thanks for Jane-type frankness.

1

We usually agree, but you don't take Obama's abuse of "marriage" (the word & its equivalents in other languages) seriously enough to consider it (added to the weight of other negative factors) fatal to his hope of re- election.  /  Since you're language-sensitive, & I made so much of Obama's language-abuse, I'm surprised you made no comment on it.  People are more offended by language-abuse than by people-abuse: people come & go, language abides.

2

I'm puzzled by your "2)": my note to Jim is agreeing with him (except for what looks like his single-issue refusal to vote for Obama).  And I disagree with your view that an extended conversation with (nuanced) repetitions is not "effective"; one way it's effective is in revealing the nature of the particular change-resistance - its degrees of intensity & of evasiveness-skill.  The irony here is that Bible-defenders are the least apt to submit to the Bible-reading changes necessary to move the Bible from nonsense to sense in the post-modern mind.  Nothing personal here: Jim & I are of two positions on how to read the Bible.  You would like our conversation to be "pleasant," & sometimes it is (as now); but this is what led to my extensive post to you on a defect in our Christian religion.

3

As for left & right calling each other "bigots," it puts a sad smile on the faces of us contrarians.    No wonder war is the default position of fallen humanity.  /  A bird's eye is round, outwardly & inwardly better designed than the human eye (which is centrally blind, and exteriorly less effective the farther you move left & right from its center).  I repeat: the farther left or right, the less you see.  Reminds me of the aphorism I heard Elton Trueblood utter in '41: "It's what you leave out that wrecks you."  (And my father's warning on the pathology of attention: "Instead of what?")

4

Amen to your "3)"!

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

 

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

From: Jane Ellingwood

To: confessi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 1:28 PM

Subject: Re: "I was for Obama, but I'm for the Bible." -Willis is for both.

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Herb,

I have never become a member of "Confessing Christ," because I did not
believe we were in a confessional situation. Now, I am wondering. It
seems that marriage, for the Bible, points to the very being and
identity of God, Yahweh and Israel, to Christ and the church in their
unity and distinction. If marriage can be a matter of those in whom
there is no essential distinction in unity, then the same could be
said of Christ and the church, that they truly are not in a unity of
diversity, not Head and body, not Servant Lord and served, Husband and
Bride. Of course, that is exactly what much of the UCC has been
saying for years!

For me, to vote for Obama at this point would be to vote for the
promotion of segregation--sexual segregation, to tear apart that that
which God has joined: a house divided cannot stand. I can't stomach
Romney's lying, but that is a different issue.

As I have said for years, our political life is showing that the state
of the male-female union is not good (Bill Clinton, John Edwards
etc.), and this is one more sign.

Jim

[Willis E. Elliott]

Dear Hugh

 

Let's "despair" (4x, my underlinings) of each other's mentality, & have a good laugh.  What huge differences there must be in our backgrounds & experiences!  But what a common freedom to speak our minds!

1

Your shock reminds me of that of another Brit, john a t robinson (1 year my junior), with whom I was traveling with jollity shortly after his wife, at breakfast, suggested HONEST TO GOD as the title of the book he was working on.  I asked whether he'd had any backlash from the fact that his children were "living in sin" (unmarried, each with a sexual partner) in his expansive bishop's residence, & his responsive was an explosive "You Americans!" followed by laughter.

2

Yes, I consider my personal situation "normative": virginal marriage, marital faithfulness.  First date, the week I got my B.D.  The easiest, most efficient sex-trip.  (Easier when, as in my hetero case of birth-order, one's siblings on either side were of the other sex.)  Normative, not normal: in human sexuality, nothing is normal.  But in sexual speech, languages have a norm-al word for the bio-family (father/mother/child) as the basic human institution ("instituted of God"), societally recognized with public celebration, & (in civilizations) legally established.  /  Among other things, a civilization or culture is a structure of sound called "a language."  Linguistically, the first effect of Obama's outing himself on "gay marriage" is to deprive the American language of any single word for the bio-family as socio-structural.  That linguistic deprivation is precivilized.  This deprivation comes at a time when "marriage" is increasingly bypassed (an UNcivilized condition), & almost half of Americans are being born bastards with (all experts in the relevant disciplines agree) bleak prospects for the future.  Degenerate language in a degenerate society: how about using some of your "despair" on that?

3

You & I agree that any committed &-faithful loving relationship is a social-wealth contribution to any society.  Before any state in the U.S. had any positive law on gay unions, I was preaching that fact (which you state) on national public television; & before that at NYTSeminary I was the dean whose responsibilities included supervision of our relatively many homo students (including couples), especially from the Metropolitan Church.  So how about canceling one or two of your four "despairs" on me?

4

Your second paragraph mentions (in other wording) the fact that I am easy to misread - of which you are an example.  The NT says Paul is hard to read; I too, & I'm not surprised that few struggle to read me.  My thinking seems strange to many.  It's partly because my mental formation includes having read Scripture daily (that's Scripture itself, not translations) in Hebrew & Greek for more than 60 years.  Please consider two factors here:

4.1

The Bible is almost entirely oral literature, & one steeped in its languages & texts is inclined to write orally.  My boss (Truman Douglass, for ten years in the national UCC offices) said that what I write should be read aloud while walking.  (In a public speech, he said my Thinksheets are "worth reading aloud three times while walking.")  Anyone who has learned sight speed-reading (a good skill) has a mind misshapened for reading the Bible or me.

4.2

The Bible's sentence structures are so different from English!  They have deeply influenced my sentence structures.  Those who can't read the Bible (but only translations) find me not easy to read.  Besides not always being your usual English sentence structure, my sentences are precise: miss (e.g.) a comma, & you're almost sure to get a wrong impression.  (Imprecise reading of me has been a chief cause of confusion on our Forum.)

5

As you know, Hugh, Churchill said of your language & ours that "our two countries are divided by the same language."  A cause for laughter, & pondering - as I hope you take this, my response to you.

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

 

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

From: Hugh Graham

To: confessi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 5:19 PM

Subject: Re: "I was for Obama, but I'm for the Bible." -Willis is for both.

[fc...@comcast.net]

Dear Jim,

 

1) You seem to have a real problem voting for Obama because he has come out for Gay Marriage. That is fine...many people do.

 

2) But does that mean you do have not problem voting for a Mormon who believes that THE BOOK OF MORMON is equal to scripture, has a very shady history of being started by a con-man who loved women so much he wanted polygamy, sets up a story about American history that is shown to be wrong by DNA, says that marriage is ETERNAL, is questionable on salvation by grace, and questionable on escatology and the Doctrine of God   etc. etc. etc.

 

3) The balance (from any honest Christian point of view) should go to Obama and not Romney on these religious questions. In your point of view he has one problem. Romney cannot even be a member of the ecumenical church!!!!!

 

4) BUT we are not talking religious questions. We are talking about politics in a state where there are a great deal of various religious points of view. In the 1400's the politics would not have allowed Mormonism to exist in public. It was seen as heresey and would have been under the Inquisition.

 

5) But in this secular state we have freedom for both orthodox Christians and for heretical sects like Mormons and JW's. Is there room for gay people to have monogamous relationships? Do not hide your viewpoint under religious pretense. There are orthodox gay Christians who love the NIcene Creed and this is not what Mormons do.

 

5) St. Paul was for monogamy but he allowed new converts to have multiple wives but he did not allow them to be elders. (see the Pastorals) He did not find a political party to outlaw polygamy. He merely preached the message he had from Jesus and found a way to apply it in a fallen world. He even prayed for and told Christians to pray for the king who was blatantly immoral and unchristian also.

 

6) I am a member of CONFESSION CHRIST because I confess Christ. There are many gay Christians who are also members. It is our belief that this important, big, and honest debate on the "gay issue" should not be the issue that divides us. Instead we hold to such things as the Nicene Creed to show our unity in the ecumenical church. Mormons are not part of that unity. They often are wonderful people who act a lot better than many Christians but they do affirm a different faith.

 

I would go on but I am helping fix our kitchen before our pilgrimage to Iona.

 

May the Lord bless you & Willis.

 

Chris

 

Chris

GOD IS STILL LAUGHING
'learning theology through jokes'
Rev. Dr. F. Christopher Anderson

---

From: link...@aol.com
To: "Confessing Christ Open Forum" <confessi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 8:14:32 AM

[SCOTT R PAETH]

Greetings Confessors,

I swore to myself I was not going to wade into this, but I feel compelled to make a couple of points. I'm sorry that this is my first contribution after my hiatus, but I think the issue is important:

1. If Confessing Christ is going to be defined by understanding gay marriage as a "status confessionis" situation, I'm out.

2. Jim seems to be making several unjustified leaps of logic from "distinction in unity" in marriage to a number of other theological topics without making the necessary theological links to show why there ought to be any "slippery slope" involved in any of this.

3. Anyone who understands the "distinction in unity" aspect of marriage to be reducible to the genders of those in the relationship has an impoverished sense of how the concept of distinction in unity operates in terms of human relationships. All human relationships demonstrate distinction in unity, of which marriage is one type. If the relationship between the Father and the Son in the Trinity is understood as a relationship of distinction in unity despite the fact that both persons of the trinity have the same "gender" (in whatever sense that term is appropriately used in this context), then distinction in unity can't be understood theologically to be primarily a question of gender distinction as regards marriage. Similarly with regard to to "distinction in unity" as it applies to the Christ and the church. The fact that Paul uses the marriage metaphor in his description of the relationship of Christ to the church doesn't imply that everything that is true of marriage in the temporal sense is also applicable in exactly the same way to Christ and the church. The attempt to extend the metaphor in such a way as to suggest that there is anything at stake ecclesiologically in the extension of marriage rights to members of the same gender is to engage in a serious over-reading of the theological implications of marriage as a civil matter. Furthermore, it's to read the situation backwards. We don't attempt to understand the nature of the metaphor of the marriage of Christ and the church through the lens of temporal marriage, rather we should understand temporal marriage to reflect that which is true of the marriage of Christ to the church.

4. Jim seems to think that gay marriage implies "sexual segregation," as though somehow gay people getting married would mean straight people wouldn't get married. But gay marriage is actually the OVERCOMING of the sexual segregation that currently exists whereby gay folk are treated as a civil matter as second class citizens. It's a strange inversion of reality from my perspective to argue that allowing gays and lesbians to enter into a civil right that straight people have enjoyed is a form of segregation. It's like saying that when southern states allowed blacks and whites to marry, this was an act of "segregation of the races" because it promoted miscegenation.

5. Jim says that the state of our political life shows that the state of the male-female union is not good, and points to Bill Clinton and John Edwards as examples. Of course, one could easily add Newt Gingrich to that mix as well, but Obama is a strange place to look for confirmation of that principle, given that, compared to pretty much every president of the last half century, his marriage has been almost uniquely solid and rooted in mutual respect and support. I don't think that one can extrapolate from the personal lives of politicians to the validity of their policy positions, but if the marriages of Clinton and Edwards are indicative of anything at all (which I'm not sure they are), then Obama's marriage is, to all appearances, indicative of its opposite.

6. Jim seems to want to base his vote in November on this issue alone, which I think ignores the enormous raft of other, very important issues that are at stake this November. I disagree with Willis that this will cost Obama the election. In fact, I think it will have close to zero impact in the long run. If Obama looses, it will be much more likely because the economy has not sufficiently rebounded. This will be ironic on many levels, since it will be a great reward to the republicans for four years of obstructionism. But it will also, sadly, probably be blamed in gay marriage regardless, and thus make the lives of gay and lesbian folks harder in the long run. But beyond that, from a Christian point of view, if being in the United Church of Christ for the past 40 years when we have been pushing the leading edge of this issue hasn't caused you to leave the church over alleged "sexual segregation" then it's not clear to me why, with so much else at stake, it ought to be the determining factor in an civil election for you.

7. Even if I'm wrong in my analysis above, marriage as a theological category is different from marriage as a civil category. Our biggest problem is insisting on using the same term for both, when they serve very different ends. I suspect that we Americans have not done ourselves any favors by conflating the two. My European friends seem to have it closer to right, in having two distinct ceremonies -- the civil for the legal aspects of marriage, and the church for the theological. Of course, I don't have a theological problem with gay marriage and would happily preside over one or participate in one in a church or anywhere else. But for those that do, holding to your scruples on the theological meaning of marriage does not require a rejection of the extension of marriage as a civil matter to gays and lesbians.

Scott

[Willis E. Elliott]

Great to have you back, Scott!

Agreement except:

On your 6:
Lest anyone think me single-issue on the matter, I nuanced my statement that
Obama's support for "gay marriage" dooms his hope of reelection. I said it
was a matter of cumulative weight, the straw that broke the camel's back.
His online explanation showed no sense of the importance, on this issue, of
the fate of the word "marriage" in the American language - as I detailed in
my post this morning to Hugh Graham.

On your 7:
I couldn't agree more that "Our biggest problem is insisting on using the
same term for both" - if the term you mean is "marriage." Equal rights for
natural committed relationships of citizens (hetero & homo) is - I agree
with Obama - constitutional. But - as I've argued for decades - to achieve
that goal, there is no legal need to eliminate (by semantic expansion) the
American language's particular word for instituting (by legal & societal
ceremonies) & for the institution of society's basic structure, the
bio-family (father/mother/child).

Grace and peace--
Willis

+++

Greetings Confessors,

I swore to myself I was not going to wade into this, but I feel compelled to
make a couple of points. I'm sorry that this is my first contribution after
my hiatus, but I think the issue is important:

1. If Confessing Christ is going to be defined by understanding gay marriage
as a "status confessionis" situation, I'm out.

2. Jim seems to be making several unjustified leaps of logic from
"distinction in unity" in marriage to a number of other theological topics
without making the necessary theological links to show why there ought to be
any "slippery slope" involved in any of this.

3. Anyone who understands the "distinction in unity" aspect of marriage to
be reducible to the genders of those in the relationship has an impoverished
sense of how the concept of distinction in unity operates in terms of human
relationships. All human relationships demonstrate distinction in unity, of
which marriage is one type. If the relationship between the Father and the
Son in the Trinity is understood as a relationship of distinction in unity
despite the fact that both persons of the trinity have the same "gender" (in
whatever sense that term is appropriately used in this context), then
distinction in unity can't be understood theologically to be primarily a
question of gender distinction as regards marriage. Similarly with regard to

[ericbr...@comcast.net]

I try to stay away from these conversations, but

A rose by any other name...is still a rose. So why would you give it a different name?

 

Willis, you write that you are for civil unions that give the same rights/responsibilities/etc to same-gender couples as those that are given to opposed-gender couples, but if it's the same, why not use the same name? The answer is so that people can say it's not the same, thus it is not equal, thus it is injustice, and that is the one thing that God abhors.

 

And what I don't understand is why it matters so much to some people that same-gender couples have their legally recognized marriages be called something different than opposed-gender couples. Maybe if someone could explain that to me I'd be able to understand the whole issue. As it is, it seems like nonsense...and not just to me but to many if not most gen-xers and millenials. Perhaps this whole thing will never make sense to me because my training has taught me that both families and marriage continue to evolve and have done so throughout history. That which is mentioned in Judeo-Christian scriptures as marrage and families are nothing like what we have today...nothing, so why are we attempted to put an ideal on how a previous generation looked at marriage and family as if it has always been this way? And why would we, as Christians and (in many cases) pastors want to continue this lie?

 

Again, I don't understand and most likely it's because of the lens I see the world through, but I'm willing to find out what other lenses are there, not to change what I know to be true to the gospel, but so that I can understand and walk with those who know something else to be true to the gospel.

 

Eric

 

---

From: "Willis E. Elliott" <elli...@charter.net>
To: confessi...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 1:04:32 PM
Subject: Re: "I was for Obama, but I'm for the Bible." -Willis is for both.

[SCOTT R PAETH]

Greetings Willis,

Thanks for clarifying what you were saying regarding Obama's reelection prospects and gay marriage. I'm sure that for some people it may be a make or break issue, perhaps for them it will be the straw you speak of, maybe even for enough of the electorate to sway things, but my reading of the tea leaves suggests not. Most people won't vote on this issue, in either direction, and the determinative issue is likely to be the economy. The real challenge for Obama will be convincing people that he's in the process of digging us out of an enormous hole, dug by the other party. If he can do that, he'll win, gay marriage notwithstanding.

On the other issue, I think you and I have gone over this ground sufficiently over the years that we're unlikely to convince one another but I'll say again what I believe I've said before, which is simply that I don't buy the analysis you offer her that the theological sense of marriage is in some way the culturally prior sense of the term, and should be the one given preference, particularly in a religiously pluralistic society. There is plenty to suggest that there are, even in the Bible, many forms of marriage that don't conform to the standard western one husband-one wife model, and certainly throughout the world there are many as well. The definition of marriage changes and will no doubt continue to change. But for as long as marriage is the central institution that determines familial relationships in a SOCIETAL AND LEGAL context, then the desire to open up the benefits of marriage to same sex couples also has to include the desire to open up the legal institution of marriage to them, and to allow it to be called marriage. Because until it is and until it is properly named, then whatever social institution we offer to gay and lesbian folks that is supposed to serve as their "substitute" form of marriage will be an inferior form that fails to do, from a social and legal perspective, what is intended.

Again, I'm not expecting you to agree with me on this, and I think this is an issue on which we can agree to disagree, at least for the time being, but I wanted to make sure my position on this was laid out clearly.

Scott

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Scott,

It is the male and female unity in sexual distinction that
characterizes marriage: a husband and wife. No matter how different
two individuals of the same sex may be, marriage as sexual unity in
distinction could not be of two people of the same sex, because sex is
the only fundamental created distinction within humanity. Notice that
in Gen 1 the differentiation of human beings, corresponding to that of
diffenentiations within other creaturelty realms, is only by sex, not
by race, nation, class, or Willis' left and right handedness. From the
perspective of linguistic use this is clear: two male would be two
husbands, two females would be two wives. Only with two in sexual
distinction are we able to speak of marriage as being a sign of Christ
and the Church: Christ is not a second Church, the Church is not a
second Christ. I will not get into the Trinity, but I would say that
although the Father is not the Son is not the Holy Spirit, the three
are God, each of the three, so it is not really a unity in distinction
but triunity in identity.

As far as segregation goes, I'll ask you how you would view a club
that consisted of males only, or one that consisted of females only.
Is Augusta Country Club really fulfilling its purpose in the light of
the God who created humanity male and female? And should any
corporation that is male only or female only enjoy acknowledgment from
the state as something to be promoted? So what are we to think of a
sexual union that involves males only, or females only, has it really
fulfilled God's purpose for sexuality, for the fellowship of humanity
as male and female? And why should the state give it any special
"benefits" when in fact the state has a compelling interest in
protecting the fellowship of males and females, so under threat in our
day? And why shouldn't the state benefit people who aren't married,
don't they deserve something for being chaste in their sexual
relations?

God bless you, my brother!

Jim

On May 11, 9:08 am, SCOTT R PAETH <scottpa...@mac.com> wrote:
> Greetings Confessors,
>
> I swore to myself I was not going to wade into this, but I feel compelled to make a couple of points. I'm sorry that this is my first contribution after my hiatus, but I think the issue is important:
>
> 1. If Confessing Christ is going to be defined by understanding gay marriage as a "status confessionis" situation, I'm out.
>
> 2. Jim seems to be making several unjustified leaps of logic from "distinction in unity" in marriage to a number of other theological topics without making the necessary theological links to show why there ought to be any "slippery slope" involved in any of this.
>
> 3. Anyone who understands the "distinction in unity" aspect of marriage to be reducible to the genders of those in the relationship has an impoverished sense of how the concept of distinction in unity operates in terms of human relationships. All human relationships demonstrate distinction in unity, of which marriage is one type. If the relationship between the Father and the Son in the Trinity is understood as a relationship of distinction in unity despite the fact that both persons of the trinity have the same "gender" (in whatever sense that term is appropriately used in this context), then distinction in unity can't be understood theologically to be primarily a question of gender distinction as regards marriage. Similarly with regard to to "distinction in unity" as it applies to the Christ and the church. The fact that Paul uses the marriage metaphor in his description of the relationship of Christ to the church doesn't imply that everything that is true of marriage in the temporal sense is also applicable in exactly the same way to Christ and the church. The attempt to extend the metaphor in such a way as to suggest that there is anything at stake ecclesiologically in the extension of marriage rights to members of the same gender is to engage in a serious over-reading of the theological implications of marriage as a civil matter. Furthermore, it's to read the situation backwards. We don't attempt to understand the nature of the metaphor of the marriage of Christ and the church through the lens of temporal marriage, rather we should understand temporal marriage to reflect that which is true of the marriage of Christ to the church.
>
> 4. Jim seems to think that gay marriage implies "sexual segregation," as though somehow gay people getting married would mean straight people wouldn't get married. But gay marriage is actually the OVERCOMING of the sexual segregation that currently exists whereby gay folk are treated as a civil matter as second class citizens. It's a strange inversion of reality from my perspective to argue that allowing gays and lesbians to enter into a civil right that straight people have enjoyed is a form of segregation. It's like saying that when southern states allowed blacks and whites to marry, this was an act of "segregation of the races" because it promoted miscegenation.
>
> 5. Jim says that the state of our political life shows that the state of the male-female union is not good, and points to Bill Clinton and John Edwards as examples. Of course, one could easily add Newt Gingrich to that mix as well, but Obama is a strange place to look for confirmation of that principle, given that, compared to pretty much every president of the last half century, his marriage has been almost uniquely solid and rooted in mutual respect and support. I don't think that one can extrapolate from the personal lives of politicians to the validity of their policy positions, but if the marriages of Clinton and Edwards are indicative of anything at all (which I'm not sure they are), then Obama's marriage is, to all appearances, indicative of its opposite.
>
> 6. Jim seems to want to base his vote in November on this issue alone, which I think ignores the enormous raft of other, very important issues that are at stake this November. I disagree with Willis that this will cost Obama the election. In fact, I think it will have close to zero impact in the long run. If Obama looses, it will be much more likely because the economy has not sufficiently rebounded. This will be ironic on many levels, since it will be a great reward to the republicans for four years of obstructionism. But it will also, sadly, probably be blamed in gay marriage regardless, and thus make the lives of gay and lesbian folks harder in the long run. But beyond that, from a Christian point of view, if being in the United Church of Christ for the past 40 years when we have been pushing the leading edge of this issue hasn't caused you to leave the church over alleged "sexual segregation" then it's not clear to me why, with so much else at stake, it ought to be the determining factor in an civil election for you.
>
> 7. Even if I'm wrong in my analysis above, marriage as a theological category is different from marriage as a civil category. Our biggest problem is insisting on using the same term for both, when they serve very different ends. I suspect that we Americans have not done ourselves any favors by conflating the two. My European friends seem to have it closer to right, in having two distinct ceremonies -- the civil for the legal aspects of marriage, and the church for the theological. Of course, I don't have a theological problem with gay marriage and would happily preside over one or participate in one in a church or anywhere else. But for those that do, holding to your scruples on the theological meaning of marriage does not require a rejection of the extension of marriage as a civil matter to gays and lesbians.
>
> Scott
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Chris,

I did not say I am voting for Romney.

I wonder if sexual apartheid isn't as big an issue as racial
apartheid. That, of course has divided the church before.

Jim

On May 11, 9:05 am, "f...@comcast.net" <f...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Dear Jim,
>
> 1) You seem to have a real problem voting for Obama because he has come out for Gay Marriage. That is fine...many people do.
>
> 2) But does that mean you do have not problem voting for a Mormon who believes that THE BOOK OF MORMON is equal to scripture, has a very shady history of being started by a con-man who loved women so much he wanted polygamy, sets up a story about American history that is shown to be wrong by DNA, says that marriage is ETERNAL, is questionable on salvation by grace, and questionable on escatology and the Doctrine of God   etc. etc. etc.
>
> 3) The balance (from any honest Christian point of view) should go to Obama and not Romney on these religious questions. In your point of view he has one problem. Romney cannot even be a member of the ecumenical church!!!!!
>

> 4) BUT we are not talking religious questions. We are talking about politics in a state where there are a great deal of various religious points of view . In the 1400's the politics would not have allowed Mormonism to exist in public. It was seen as heresey and would have been under the Inquisition.

>
> 5) But in this secular state we have freedom for both orthodox Christians and for heretical sects like Mormons and JW's. Is there room for gay people to have monogamous relationships? Do not hide your viewpoint under religious pretense. There are orthodox gay Christians who love the NIcene Creed and this is not what Mormons do.
>
> 5) St. Paul was for monogamy but he allowed new converts to have multiple wives but he did not allow them to be elders. (see the Pastorals) He did not find a political party to outlaw polygamy. He merely preached the message he had from Jesus and found a way to apply it in a fallen world. He even prayed for and told Christians to pray for the king who was blatantly immoral and unchristian also.
>
> 6) I am a member of CONFESSION CHRIST because I confess Christ. There are many gay Christians who are also members. It is our belief that this important, big, and honest debate on the "gay issue" should not be the issue that divides us. Instead we hold to such things as the Nicene Creed to show our unity in the ecumenical church. Mormons are not part of that unity. They often are wonderful people who act a lot better than many Christians but they do affirm a different faith.
>
> I would go on but I am helping fix our kitchen before our pilgrimage to Iona.
>
> May the Lord bless you & Willis.
>
> Chris
>
> Chris
>
> GOD IS STILL LAUGHING
> 'learning theology through jokes'
> Rev. Dr. F. Christopher Anderson
>
>
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[SCOTT R PAETH]

Greetings Jim,

As with my response to Willis last night, I feel like this is well trodden ground in this group and I'm not sure it will be useful to explain yet again my position on this. I will simply say that I think you are seriously over-reading the implications of Genesis 1 in this regard. You argue that "marriage as sexual unity in distinction could not be of two people of the same sex, because sex is the only fundamental created distinction within humanity." But that's beside the point, even if true. You're biologizing the story in ways that simply don't make sense to me as a reader. It's not a story about biology. It's not a story about sex. It's not a story about gender. It's a story about God's creation of the world, written by humans as a testament to how they've seen God acting in the world creatively. I simply cannot, as a reader of that text, accept the idea that there is any kind of detailed sexual ethic embedded within it. The most I think one could validly conclude from Genesis 1 is that human beings, as the creations of a good and loving God, are created for relationship with one another. I don't think you can conclude from it that they are created for ONLY ONE KIND of relationship.

As for your theological points regarding the church, I will again say that they're beside the point. You're trying to develop an ethic of marriage from the material you have to work with, but the materials you're choosing can't get you where you want to go. Or maybe they can to your satisfaction, but not to mine. I think it's absurd to say that "only with two in sexual distinction are we able to speak of marriage as being a sign of Christ in the church." I think it's nonsense, in that as an interpretation of either the church or of human marital bonds, it makes literally no sense to me. And if you want to base public policy on it, you'd better have grounds that are more compelling than the marriage as the model of the church.

But regardless, this again biologizes the metaphor in a way that I can only find to be absurd. What does it mean for marriage to be the sign of the church? It means that the partners are to be related to one another in a spirit of mutual self-giving and love, not that one has a penis and the other has a vagina. I'm sorry to keep saying this, but I think your concretizing the biological aspects of this make literally no sense. It's a bad way to read the Bible. And I could say much the same about your argument regarding the Trinity, which strikes me as an act if minute hair-splitting to avoid having to concede the point.

On the subject of "sexual apartheid." I can only conclude on the basis of your use of this term with regard to same sex marriage that you know literally nothing about same sex relationships, and literally nothing about ACTUAL apartheid. In fact, it's offensive to me to take a doctrine which was rooted in the brutal repression of the rights of the majority of the population to live as they chose and use it as an analogy to the desire to allow a small minority of the population precisely TO LIVE as they choose. It's an inversion of the meaning of apartheid that I know of no actual South African who would accept. In fact, my experience of South African Christians suggests that many of them are open to same sex marriage precisely because they see its DENIAL as the equivalent of apartheid.

Let me set your mind at ease: This is not apartheid. There will be no law forbidding same sex couples from marrying. There will be no laws, customs, traditions, or mores forbidding same sex couples from living in the same towns and cities as opposite sex couples. Opposite sex couples will not be herded into impoverished townships and forced to work for same sex couples as their virtual slaves, nor will they be required to show a pass whenever they want to live their enclaves. Opposite sex couples will not be given shame governments, bantustan style, in order to give a fig leaf of legitimacy to the rulership of same sex couples. In fact, there is exactly nothing in common between the desire to allow same sex couples to marry and apartheid. Exactly. Nothing.

Given that the vast majority of marriages will continue to be heterosexual, and given that heterosexuals and homosexuals will continue to live and work alongside one another, and given that men and women will continue to work alongside one another, there is absolutely no form of segregation or apartheid taking place here. There is simply the desire to codify the loving relationships that same sex couples have for one another.

If you want to find examples of sexual segregation, there are lots of places you could look. Some even do look a bit like apartheid. But to find those places, you have to go into the conservative religious communities in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, all of which are happy to keep the sexes almost totally segregated for every purpose EXCEPT sex. In some cases, the penalties for trying to live differently are quite severe. These folks are, of course, adamantly opposed to gay marriage. For my part, I'm happy to be on the other side of the issue from these folks.

Scott

[Herb Davis]

Dear Jim, Your use of gen. 1 and the image of the church makes sense to me.
I don't think ted or Scott have offered any theological or biblical
comments. Scott, bless his heart, is good at pointing out weakness but I
think he has a tendency to spiritualize the text. I do think you over
state the apartheid image. I was wondering Jim out of which tradition do
you speak. It sounds like Jensen or Barth to me, but where are you coming
from in your use of Gen. 1 and the marriage image. I would like to keep the
discussion on text and input from theological communities. Herb

>>>> also don�t agree with Willis that there is a right reading of

>> read more �

[David Price]

What an issue to be dealing with, huh, Herb? I wish you'd send me your phone number. I miss my pastor and friend. 662-507-0981 David

On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 8:52 PM, Herb Davis <herb....@mindspring.com> wrote:

Dear Jim,  Your use of gen. 1 and the image of the church makes sense to me. I don't think ted or Scott have offered any theological or biblical comments.  Scott, bless his heart, is good at pointing out weakness but I think he has a tendency to  spiritualize the text.  I do think you over state the apartheid image.    I was wondering Jim out of which tradition do you speak.  It sounds like Jensen or Barth to me, but where are you coming from in your use of Gen. 1 and the marriage image.  I would like to keep the discussion on text and input from theological communities.     Herb

-----Original Message----- From: SCOTT R PAETH
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2012 3:42 PM

To: confessing-christ@googlegroups.com

Dear Jim, Jane, Roger, Willis, Eric and others,  I was pro Obama for president  before yesterday and for Obama for president today, not because I agree with him, but because this is a difficult issue for some and I think for Obama.  I disagree with him on a number of issues but like Willis I vote and the other party does not do it for me.  Some of us have not at this time been lead by the Holy Spirit to accept homosexual of their terms, which demands among other  demands same sex marriage.  At the same time lets remember Paul seemed to see married folks as second class citizens in the Church.  I also should say that some of us have been seen as bigots in the UCC for many years.  It is difficult when you see clearly  not assume that those who disagree are either stupid, sick, or sinful.  I pray that the Lutherans have done a better job.  Recently the president of the Mass Conf UCC in celebrating the presidents announcement reminded all that the Mass Conf was a leader in OandA.  He never mentioned that some brothers and sisters disagree.  Our salvation is not in our goodness, our sexuality, our right reading of history but in our baptism our dying with Christ.  I also don’t agree with Willis that there is a right reading of scripture.  I think there are readings that come out of traditions and for that tradition it is the right reading.      Herb

From: Jean Easland
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 3:16 PM

To: confessing-christ@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: "I was for Obama, but I'm for the Bible." -Willis is for both.

Dear Jane: I agree with your number 2. Thanks for your honest, genereous comments in the rest of your post. I don't expect to participate in the discussion and I hope other topics do not get neglected because of the consuming fire that can take over. Gratefully+++Roger

 ----- Original Message -----
 From: Jane Ellingwood
 To: confessing-christ@googlegroups.com
 Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 1:28 PM
 Subject: Re: "I was for Obama, but I'm for the Bible." -Willis is for both.

 Dear Willis and Jim,

 This is the long-lost Jane. I have read your two emails below, but not all the others piling up from this week.  I did also read Herb's sermon notes. I always read his sermon notes every week, even though he doesn't realize that.

 I am not sure whether you include me in the folks who don't want to talk about the topics you bring up here, but I am assuming you do. So I wish to say the following to you.

 1) I can't think of a more interesting and relevant thing to talk about in this forum right now than our various perspectives on President Obama's new position and the vote in North Carolina this week, and the upcoming election. I would also love to talk about the Bible and how we handle the discussions with our congregations, without getting polarized either on the issues about marriage and full rights for LGBTQ folks, or polarized on divisions between Democrats vs. Republicans.  I am engaged in discussions with members of my local

...

read more »

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Herb,

I don't like the apartheid image, but I used it with regard to Chris'
mathmatical argument that one issue should not be make or break as far
as support for a candidate or for the confessional status of the
church. On the other hand, when de facto segregation becomes de jure
segregation, when law with its benefits promotes sexual segregation or
smiles upon it, so to speak, that is apartheid.

I am influenced by Brevard Childs here, and by Karl Barth. I don't
remember what book of Childs (it was in an essay, I think) but, as
far as Barth goes, CD III1, The Docrine of Creation, pp. 181ff have
been helpful to me. Scott's question about the Trinity is a good one,
and I am still working on it, although I do not think that I am
"splitting hairs" as he says. Barth seemed to be saying that we find
in the text three differentiations in relationship: Differentiation
within God "Let US make ....according to our image...",
differentiation in the creation of Humanity as the partner of God as a
likeness of this image in Godself, "God created humanity..." (the God-
human relatiionship is itself a relationship in differentiation), and
differentiation within humanity itself as as the being created for
differentiated relationship with God ("male and female God created
humanity"). Because there is this "I-thou" relationship in distinction
in all three relationships, we can say that the God-human relationship
is true both to God in Godself and Humanity in Humanity's self. The
God-Human differention in fellowship is mirrored from the human side
by the male-female differentiation in human beings, for God and
humanity are not simply two different individuals in fellowship, but
two who are, as it were, "structurally" different within relationship.
From God's side, so to speak, the God-human differentiation in
fellowship is itself a mirror or image of the God-image
differentiation within God. "As the Father sent me, so I send you..."
But differentiation in relationship does take place in three different
relationships here: In the relationship within God, it is a
relationship of identity, one God, Creator, in the relationship
between God and humanity, it is a relationship non-identity, of
Creature-Creator, ("I will be your God, you will be my people) in the
relationship within humanity it is a relationship of unity, many human
beings, fellow creatures. Don't hold me to that, I am still working on
it.

And, of course, with Childs and Barth, I have been influenced by Jesus
in his quote from Gen 1 and his ethical biological exegesis: "What God
has joined..."

Jim

> ...
>
> read more »

[Rev. AWKovacs]

> " Dear Jim, Your use of gen. 1 and the image of the church makes sense to

> me. I don't think ... ... have offered any theological or biblical
> comments. - Herb "

Jim:
I prefer your orientation, notabaly including Genesis 1, in this
discussion. In reflecting on the Reformation principle of "sola scriptura."
I'm reminded that as much as the Reformers contended with our separated
brethern ("papists"), they also tackled the humanist "rationalists" with
their arguments from the culture, notably Ursinus. As Paul wrote: "the
world did not know God through wisdom." ... "And," he adds, "we impart this
in words not tauht by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting
spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit."
In that light, you bring in the most essential element of all - divine
revelation (scripture alone) - with the persistence of Luther. Far beyond
the "what" of science and culture is the "why" that is introduced by the
book of "Genesis" necessary inclusion in the canon, and essential to that
"word of God" is the belief that by that "word" our God is speaking (All
Listen!) and definitively, as Jesus believed (and who should know better)
who did not come to change one iota of "the Law."
Al

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Scott,

I am still working on your trinity question, which also relates to
what Ted wrote about the flesh, and may even appeal to Jane; but I can
say that my answer goes something like this: The differentiation of
relationship within God is that of the Eternal Father, the Only
Begotten Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father has no father and is
never a son, and thus we say of the Son that he is the Only Begotten,
even as He is never a father who begets. Thus, the two are eternally
differentiated as Father and Son, whereas two males are not
differentiated inasmuch as both, even if one is the father of the
other as son, are both sons, and sometimes both evn may become
fathers.

God bless you!

Jim

On May 13, 3:42 pm, SCOTT R PAETH <scottpa...@mac.com> wrote:
> Greetings Jim,
>
> As with my response to Willis last night, I feel like this is well trodden ground in this group and I'm not sure it will be useful to explain yet again my position on this. I will simply say that I think you are seriously over-reading the implications of Genesis 1 in this regard. You argue that "marriage as sexual unity in distinction could not be of two people of the same sex, because sex is the only fundamental created distinction within humanity." But that's beside the point, even if true. You're biologizing the story in ways that simply don't make sense to me as a reader. It's not a story about biology. It's not a story about sex. It's not a story about gender. It's a story about God's creation of the world, written by humans as a testament to how they've seen God acting in the world creatively. I simply cannot, as a reader of that text, accept the idea that there is any kind of detailed sexual ethic embedded within it. The most I think one could validly conclude from Genesis 1 is that human beings, as the creations of a good and loving God, are created for relationship with one another. I don't think you can conclude from it that they are created for ONLY ONE KIND of relationship.
>
> As for your theological points regarding the church, I will again say that they're beside the point. You're trying to develop an ethic of marriage from the material you have to work with, but the materials you're choosing can't get you where you want to go. Or maybe they can to your satisfaction, but not to mine. I think it's absurd to say that "only with two in sexual distinction are we able to speak of marriage as being a sign of Christ in the church." I think it's nonsense, in that as an interpretation of either the church or of human marital bonds, it makes literally no sense to me. And if you want to base public policy on it, you'd better have grounds that are more compelling than the marriage as the model of the church.
>
> But regardless, this again biologizes the metaphor in a way that I can only find to be absurd. What does it mean for marriage to be the sign of the church? It means that the partners are to be related to one another in a spirit of mutual self-giving and love, not that one has a penis and the other has a vagina. I'm sorry to keep saying this, but I think your concretizing the biological aspects of this make literally no sense. It's a bad way to read the Bible. And I could say much the same about your argument regarding the Trinity, which strikes me as an act if minute hair-splitting to avoid having to concede the point.
>
> On the subject of "sexual apartheid." I can only conclude on the basis of your use of this term with regard to same sex marriage that you know literally nothing about same sex relationships, and literally nothing about ACTUAL apartheid. In fact, it's offensive to me to take a doctrine which was rooted in the brutal repression of the rights of the majority of the population to live as they chose and use it as an analogy to the desire to allow a small minority of the population precisely TO LIVE as they choose. It's an inversion of the meaning of apartheid that I know of no actual South African who would accept. In fact, my experience of South African Christians suggests that many of them are open to same sex marriage precisely because they see its DENIAL as the equivalent of apartheid.
>
> Let me set your mind at ease: This is not apartheid. There will be no law forbidding same sex couples from marrying. There will be no laws, customs, traditions, or mores forbidding same sex couples from living in the same towns and cities as opposite sex couples. Opposite sex couples will not be herded into impoverished townships and forced to work for same sex couples as their virtual slaves, nor will they be required to show a pass whenever they want to live their enclaves. Opposite sex couples will not be given shame governments, bantustan style, in order to give a fig leaf of legitimacy to the rulership of same sex couples. In fact, there is exactly nothing in common between the desire to allow same sex couples to marry and apartheid. Exactly. Nothing.
>
> Given that the vast majority of marriages will continue to be heterosexual, and given that heterosexuals and homosexuals will continue to live and work alongside one another, and given that men and women will continue to work alongside one another, there is absolutely no form of segregation or apartheid taking place here. There is simply the desire to codify the loving relationships that same sex couples have for one another.
>
> If you want to find examples of sexual segregation, there are lots of places you could look. Some even do look a bit like apartheid. But to find those places, you have to go into the conservative religious communities in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, all of which are happy to keep the sexes almost totally segregated for every purpose EXCEPT sex. In some cases, the penalties for trying to live differently are quite severe. These folks are, of course, adamantly opposed to gay marriage. For my part, I'm happy to be on the other side of the issue from these folks.
>
> Scott
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[Scott R. Paeth]

Greetings Jim,

Sorry not to respond sooner. I've been sick the last few days. I read your analysis below, and I think it's theologically interesting as an attempt to draw a very specific sexual ethic out of a very particular theological doctrine. But like your reading of Genesis, I find it alien and unconvincing. I think in the end, as I dwell on these issues, I realize that I cannot credibly draw specific inferences from general theological concepts. I can draw general moral principles from theological concepts, and I can draw general moral implications from biblical narratives, but I cannot move from the general to the particular on the basis of those principles or narratives. I have to move through several intermediate stages of moral reflection in order to begin to draw any valid inferences from them. So again, I think from Genesis I can draw broad inferences about human beings being created for relationship, and I can even conclude that foundationally that was rooted in the male/female relationship. I cannot extrapolate from that the idea that only male/female relationships are permitted.

In a similar vein, if the theological doctrine of the Trinity can imply that the image and likeness of God in us is relational in its essence, that I can understand. But if you want to draw specific ethical conclusions from that, you need a series of intermediate steps. You can't jump from the theological principles to the ethical conclusion. And the question that I will always ask by way of response is whether the recognition of certain relationships in the Biblical context or within the theological tradition must in principle exclude others. And my conclusion to this point is that it needn't. I don't think what you've written below changes my mind on that.

But, in honesty, I think we're unlikely to change one another's mind on this, and I'm resigned to the fact. I was much, MUCH more upset at your apartheid language, which I haven't seen you restate recently. So I'm inclined to let the matter rest here. But if you feel that there's more to be gained from further discussion, I'm up for it.

Scott

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Scott,

I'm sorry to hear that you have not been feeling good.

As you know, both Bonhoeffer and Barth agreed that in theological
ethics we "cannot move from the general to the particular on the basis
of those principles or narratives" and that it is the command of the
living God alone that bring to us the specific command to each of us
in our specific day and place. Theological ethics can only give us
indications, general directions, through critical reflection on what
God has revealed about Godself, including specific commands God have
given in specific times and places. What is to characterize our
ethical existence is not "extrapolation," (although extrapolation my
be one means of revelation) but free obedience in the acknowledgment
of faith and God reveals Godself (not a bow to the "absurd," but to
that which we have come to understand, as you well point out). We seem
also to agree that Genesis One clearly points us in a general
direction toward the centrality of the fellowship of humanity in
"structural" (Barth) differentiation, as male and female, created as
such by God toward covenant history (as revealed in Gen 2), covenant
being the history of the fellowship of God and humanity in their
differentiation, God being God. "let us...in our image" in a
fellowship of differentiation. Thus, confronted now by relatively new
preaching and teaching calling for acknowledgment of homosexual
unions and marriage, we examine this preaching and teaching
critically, in light of the Bible and the historic teaching and
practice of the church, and I conclude that homosexuality activity
itself, whatever particular form it takes, seems to me to be a step in
opposite direction from the call of God, an act of rebellion, sloth
and false witness (with many more acts of heterosexual rebellion,
sloth and false witness), in terms of the call of God as it is
pronounced in Gen 1, and indeed, thoughout the rest of the Bible and
most of church teaching and practice, with regard to sexual relations.
You are right, I speak in general, that is all we can do, but,
generally speaking, what we read in the Bible calls into question the
fullfillment of humanity in any fellowship that is not somehow a
fellowship of male and female.

It is not that "only male/female relationships are permitted" but
that, generally speaking, male and female are revealed to be called
together for fellowship as the differentiation within humanity, and
any of the vastly diverse relationships between people of the same sex
should somehow bear witness to that call, to that humanity that is
male and female in differentiation. I don't see this "somehow" in same
sex "unions" or "marriage," let alone same sex sexual intimacy.

God bless you in continued recovery of health!

Jim

On May 18, 4:47 pm, "Scott R. Paeth" <scottpa...@mac.com> wrote:
> Greetings Jim,
>
> Sorry not to respond sooner. I've been sick the last few days. I read your analysis below, and I think it's theologically interesting as an attempt to draw a very specific sexual ethic out of a very particular theological doctrine. But like your reading of Genesis, I find it alien and unconvincing. I think in the end, as I dwell on these issues, I realize that I cannot credibly draw specific inferences from general theological concepts. I can draw general moral principles from theological concepts, and I can draw general moral implications from biblical narratives, but I cannot move from the general to the particular on the basis of those principles or narratives. I have to move through several intermediate stages of moral reflection in order to begin to draw any valid inferences from them. So again, I think from Genesis I can draw broad inferences about human beings being created for relationship, and I can even conclude that foundationally that was rooted in the male/female relationship. I cannot extrapolate from that the idea that only male/female relationships are permitted.
>
> In a similar vein, if the theological doctrine of the Trinity can imply that the image and likeness of God in us is relational in its essence, that I can understand. But if you want to draw specific ethical conclusions from that, you need a series of intermediate steps. You can't jump from the theological principles to the ethical conclusion. And the question that I will always ask by way of response is whether the recognition of certain relationships in the Biblical context or within the theological tradition must in principle exclude others. And my conclusion to this point is that it needn't. I don't think what you've written below changes my mind on that.
>
> But, in honesty, I think we're unlikely to change one another's mind on this, and I'm resigned to the fact. I was much, MUCH more upset at your apartheid language, which I haven't seen you restate recently. So I'm inclined to let the matter rest here. But if you feel that there's more to be gained from further discussion, I'm up for it.
>
> Scott
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[SCOTT R PAETH]

Greetings Jim,

Thanks for your note. I don't want to belabor the point any further. I just want to say that I think your note illustrates the general hermeneutical problem for Christian ethics in thinking, not just about this, but about any number of contemporary ethical issues that weren't contemplated, or at least, weren't conceived in ways similar to, the world of the Bible.

I think you and I agree that Christian ethics needs to be done in the context of the Biblical tradition, we agree that we must draw on the resources of the theological tradition, and we agree that there are a variety of ways that one could conceivably do that. Where I think our disagreements lie is in what resources from the Bible and the tradition ought to be relevant to the contemporary discussion, and in what way. There's no "view from nowhere" that will answer that question for us. We both answer it as faithful Chrisitans (or at least those attempting to be faithful Christians) or are situated in our lives and circumstances. It would be alien to everything my life and circumstances have taught me to read the Bible and the tradition in the way that you do, as I gather you would view it as alien to view the them in the way that I do. That's not to say that you and I can't understand on an intellectual plane what one another are arguing, but I at least find it difficult to imagine an argument that would convince you that I was right, and I can't really think of one that would convince me that you were right.

Thus the issue is bigger than this particular issue. What we are dealing with are two different ways of understanding how the Bible, the tradition, and our situatedness intersect with one another in order to produce a fruitful ethical discourse. I have to say that my guess is that only more exposure to genuinely loving and healthy gay and lesbian relationships would change your mind, because it would change your situatedness, as it has affected mine. I grew up around gay and lesbian folks, and never saw them or their relationships as being in any way problematic, which is why I say that it would be alien to my situation to accept the premises of much of your argument.

But that I suppose cuts too much into the meat of the specific issue. I think the larger question is more important to the future of discourse among otherwise like minded Christians on contentious issues. So I'm going to leave the ball there, though I'd be interested in pursuing the conversation in a more general vein. But I think that the homosexuality issue will remain a dead end for us for the foreseeable future.

Scott

PS. Thanks for the kind words on my health. I'm on the mend. Just dealing with a really nasty and lingering cold.

[Willis E. Elliott]

Eric

 

Your second paragraph wrongly equates inequality (a mathematical-political term) with injustice.  The correct equation is inequity (unfairness, in consideration of differences) & injustice.

 

Your third paragraph does not mention my basis for a distinctive word (in each language) to designate society's basic institution, the father - mother - child family.  My basis is anthropology & linguistics, not any particular culture or religion.  The basic society-reproducing institution of course has different shapes in different cultures.  But every culture has laws & cultures providing for the building & protection of the culture's psychosocial as well as physical baby-nest.  Expanding the word "marriage" beyond this basis institution would deprive the culture's language of a distinctive word designating this institution with its attendant laws & customs.

 

Amen to your last paragraph!

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

[Jean Easland]

Willis: This explanation to Eric was the clear statement I needed to here from you. Thank you so much. Blessings on you and your family!   Roger