Michael,

Reason, in Hooker’s day, did not mean what we mean by “reason” in our day.  Reason was the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to the Church in its day, not the elightenment idea of “thinking” or “science” or even “logic.”  So, to say that the Covenant does not include “reason” is not a true statement.

The “bone” that is thrown to GLBT persons is the same bone thrown to all of us.  “Repent, the Kingdom of God is at Hand.”  “While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”  “And such were some of you, but you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.”  “...it is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body.”

When we start to demand “bones” based on our sexual preferences, then we are in danger of splitting the body of Christ even further than it is now.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

It is a hard fact that there is no bone for glbt people. This is, of course, the point at issue. To give a bone is to decide a priori the issue at hand in favor of an inclusive view of human sexuality.

  Well Charlie, now we know why your deputation pays little attention to you!  But really, now we know what the real message of the Anglican communion is to gay people. And that’s ok because it is good for y’all to finally quit dodging around this “we love you as children of God.”

  You are welcome to think my view of Reason is idiosyncratic, nonetheless it is the heart of Mr. Hooker’s system.  But since the lust to eject gay people is more important than anglican heritage, well wishes.

Phil Snyder - 31 July 2009 10:01 PM

Michael,

Reason, in Hooker’s day, did not mean what we mean by “reason” in our day.  Reason was the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to the Church in its day, not the elightenment idea of “thinking” or “science” or even “logic.”  So, to say that the Covenant does not include “reason” is not a true statement.

The “bone” that is thrown to GLBT persons is the same bone thrown to all of us.  “Repent, the Kingdom of God is at Hand.”  “While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”  “And such were some of you, but you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.”  “...it is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body.”

When we start to demand “bones” based on our sexual preferences, then we are in danger of splitting the body of Christ even further than it is now.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

I am sorry, but you are wrong on the role of Reason in Mr. Hooker. Although I kinda like the link to the Holy Spirit, but actually it is a basic human faculty that functions well because the processes are given by God not the content.

Enlightenment writers will look to Mr. Hooker as a foundational thinker, even as they detach reason from revelation, something ooker did not do.

Kare Younge said:

“The Covenant addresses this problem by defining both what Anglicanism is and believes, and how Anglicans can be depended upon to act. Any province that does not sign the Covenant is saying in effect, “we may (or may not) believe those things, and we may (or may not) act in that way…”

  Yes, I agree, it does.  The G.S has focused on the belief portion, and that is and will continue to be problematic, simply on the practical level.  It implies that: 1. A correct hermeneutic is in place (A Dar-es-Salaam recommendation so far totally ignored) 2.  Revelation is already complete 3. That we admit one understanding of the “faith once delivered” and that understanding is immutable.  These assume a common epistemology which I don’t think is at all common.  So, if, simply on the practical level, maybe the “belief” criterion may not work, the question of praxis is relevant.  In that TEC’s judgment is certainly to be questioned.  But then, so is Nigeria’s and other nation’s who have simply ignored the listening process.  I oppose the idea of a doctrinally driven communion, not because it is not a good measure, but because it will not work.  By contrast, a Communion based on how we will treat each other, I think has the benefit of being workable.  This, however, may pose a problem for the CofE which, as a state religion, has an issue with granting any sort of suzerainty to an outside power.  What Track 2 status as proffered by N.T. Wright for TEC suggests to me, only the very limited area of mission, and, quite frankly I believe will be seen by the more cynical members of TEC as:  “Yes, you’re a member but you must sit out on the back stoop during the party. You can not dine with the others or share their conversation, but we would like you to pick up the tab”

  Well Charlie, now we know why your deputation pays little attention to you!  But really, now we know what the real message of the Anglican communion is to gay people. And that’s ok because it is good for y’all to finally quit dodging around this “we love you as children of God.”

And it is good for you to quit dodging around saying you want us to listen, when what you want is acquiescence.

Michael,

You must come to realize that there is a difference between the sinner and the sin.  We are not the sum of our sinful desires.  We are loved children of God who have twisted our nature so that we no longer really know who we are.

The Church does not want to kick you our or get rid of “teh gays.”  The Church wants all people to come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.  But there are certain behaviors that the Church cannot bless.  You seem to think that because the Church does not bless your sexual sin, it does not bless you or want you.  This is a false statement.  You said: “But since the lust to eject gay people is more important than anglican heritage, well wishes.”  To that I reply that you seem to be of the mind that “lust…is more important than anglican heritage.”  You want to change the teaching of the Anglican Communion rather than be confromed to that teaching and you are willing to rip the communion apart to make it happen.

That makes me sad.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Phil Snyder - 01 August 2009 11:08 AM

Michael,

You must come to realize that there is a difference between the sinner and the sin.  We are not the sum of our sinful desires.  We are loved children of God who have twisted our nature so that we no longer really know who we are.

The Church does not want to kick you our or get rid of “teh gays.”  The Church wants all people to come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.  But there are certain behaviors that the Church cannot bless.  You seem to think that because the Church does not bless your sexual sin, it does not bless you or want you.  This is a false statement.  You said: “But since the lust to eject gay people is more important than anglican heritage, well wishes.”  To that I reply that you seem to be of the mind that “lust…is more important than anglican heritage.”  You want to change the teaching of the Anglican Communion rather than be confromed to that teaching and you are willing to rip the communion apart to make it happen.

That makes me sad.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Phil,

  I think that this overweening concern with the sexual behaviors of others is the sign of twisted will and emotion. I disagree with you that our nature is evil.  Our will is highly compromised, but not our nature, since we cannot thwart God.  That the physical acts of people deeply desiring to be in committed relationship is the rock upon which the Communion rests is so out of proportion to what Scripture thinks significant as to be pitiable.

  I disagree with the reading of scripture that applies fragmentary bits of codes which we no longer hold in their entirety (and as Anglicans never did) to the relationships of glbt folk.  Nor do I agree that a tradition whose view of sexuality was skewed by Augustine and Jerome to apply to gays any more than it applies to heterosexuals.  please remember that “Tradition” holds sexual acts, other than procreative ones, to be sins of lust.

  I do agree that we wish to bring people to Jesus Christ.  I follow the Jesus of the Gospels whose only harsh words are reserved for the religious purists of his own day who exclude people based on their own distorted twisting of scripture and tradition to massage their own biases and egos.  Perfectly nice people, wanting to serve God, but destructive to the wider community.  It is this same group that troubles Christianity today in the form of ACNA and the other purity obsessed.

  So when you hold up a tradition which is highly suspect in this and many other areas, with a distorted use of Scripture, at lease int he Anglican tradition, and add to that the very sort of puritanism against which Jesus railed I am happy to be in open opposition to that.

  The impasse is this:  Some believe that same sex sin is evil independent of the context in which it is done.  I, and many others, believe that all sexual acts are to be judged based upon the context in which they are expressed.  It is the contexts and intent which make many things good or evil, not the things themselves.

  You will find this sort of hermeneutic throughout the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity with a very simple yet astute methodology for weighing all the relevant sources of authority (not the serial sort you offered in a previous post to me on another thread).

Mike

The impasse is this:  Some believe that same sex sin is evil independent of the context in which it is done.  I, and many others, believe that all sexual acts are to be judged based upon the context in which they are expressed.  It is the contexts and intent which make many things good or evil, not the things themselves.

But that is just the point, Michael.  We are so blinded by our own sin (and not just sexual sin) that we cannot judge based on context.  In my own context, my gluttony is not sinful.  In the CEO’s context, his greed is not sinful.  We are all so twisted by our sin that we are not fit to judge based on context.  This is one of the reasons that God revealed His will in Holy Scriptures.  Our blindness is also helped by community, but if our local community only looks like us and thinks like us, it is less effective at helping us discern God’s will.  Thus the need for catholicity and the whole Church.  As +Rowan Williams said, “Only the whole Church knows the whole truth.”

All sin has its roots in idolatry - the desire to worship something other than God as god - normally that something is some manifestation of the self. We are all masters at self deception and in our own “contexts” we believe our actions to be neither idolatrous or sinful.

As a second point, I don’t care what you do in the beadroom and with whom or what your do it.  My only concern is that sex was designed to be expressed only in the marriage of one man and one woman.  Anything else is sinful and cannot be blessed.  It is not the conservatives that kept bringing the issue up to General Convention time and time again.  We are not the ones obsessed with sex.  It is those who wanted the Church to bless their sin - that define themselves by with whom they sleep that are obsessed with sex.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Phil Snyder - 01 August 2009 10:13 PM

The impasse is this:  Some believe that same sex sin is evil independent of the context in which it is done.  I, and many others, believe that all sexual acts are to be judged based upon the context in which they are expressed.  It is the contexts and intent which make many things good or evil, not the things themselves.

But that is just the point, Michael.  We are so blinded by our own sin (and not just sexual sin) that we cannot judge based on context.  In my own context, my gluttony is not sinful.  In the CEO’s context, his greed is not sinful.  snip
YBIC,
Phil Snyder

You miss my point about context. If your gluttony done as an expression of love and fidelity? Is it an offering to God of your best intentions?  I am not talking about a permissive cultural context, but the more immediate way in which the acts are framed.  I highly doubt there is any good intention in the predatory CEO.

Interestingly of course usury and the robbing of widows and orphans, both much huger sins in the eyes of scripture and much more prevalent, hardly get an organized word from ANY of US.  Do we dare talk about the immorality of the credit-debt scandal?

Michael Russell - 01 August 2009 11:36 PM

Phil Snyder - 01 August 2009 10:13 PM

The impasse is this:  Some believe that same sex sin is evil independent of the context in which it is done.  I, and many others, believe that all sexual acts are to be judged based upon the context in which they are expressed.  It is the contexts and intent which make many things good or evil, not the things themselves.

But that is just the point, Michael.  We are so blinded by our own sin (and not just sexual sin) that we cannot judge based on context.  In my own context, my gluttony is not sinful.  In the CEO’s context, his greed is not sinful.  snip
YBIC,
Phil Snyder

You miss my point about context. If your gluttony done as an expression of love and fidelity? Is it an offering to God of your best intentions?  I am not talking about a permissive cultural context, but the more immediate way in which the acts are framed.  I highly doubt there is any good intention in the predatory CEO.

Interestingly of course usury and the robbing of widows and orphans, both much huger sins in the eyes of scripture and much more prevalent, hardly get an organized word from ANY of US.  Do we dare talk about the immorality of the credit-debt scandal?

Michael,
Love and fidelity aren’t expressed by leading a fellow-Christian into acts of disobedience. Whatever your intentions might be, the result is to drive a wedge between that person and God, and between yourself and God. That’s always the result of sin.

Probably the reason you aren’t hearing an outcry over the debt scandal is that the perpetrators aren’t demanding the Church’s blessing on their wrongdoing. There wasn’t any Resolution D02— affirming that “God has called and may call” financial malefactors to the ordained ministry, nor any Resolution C05— calling for “consideration of theological and liturgical resources for the blessing of” Ponzi schemes or predatory lending practices.

Karen

Michael,
Love and fidelity aren’t expressed by leading a fellow-Christian into acts of disobedience. Whatever your intentions might be, the result is to drive a wedge between that person and God, and between yourself and God. That’s always the result of sin.

It is not the acts, it is the context that attaches disobedience. The context of idolatry or ritual prostitution or whatever.  But I know we will never get past this impasse.  In those contexts in those cultures the condemnation was justified, but even then it was not the physical acts but their location.

So I reject your description, and will continue to argue that you and others who approach this issue this way have a defective view of scriptural interpretation.

Michael Russell - 02 August 2009 12:31 PM

Michael,
Love and fidelity aren’t expressed by leading a fellow-Christian into acts of disobedience. Whatever your intentions might be, the result is to drive a wedge between that person and God, and between yourself and God. That’s always the result of sin.

It is not the acts, it is the context that attaches disobedience. The context of idolatry or ritual prostitution or whatever.  But I know we will never get past this impasse.  In those contexts in those cultures the condemnation was justified, but even then it was not the physical acts but their location.

So I reject your description, and will continue to argue that you and others who approach this issue this way have a defective view of scriptural interpretation.

Michael, please see my reply on the “Scriptural Verses relating to Homosexuality” thread. I responded there so as not to divert this thread any further away from discussion of Bp Wright’s “unpacking”.

Karen