tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6020471.post4296024629690184244..comments2023-06-10T11:47:43.132-04:00Comments on Reverend Ref +: MY BIG THOUGHTSReverend Ref +http://www.blogger.com/profile/12608521436386973234noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6020471.post-62275068827217738002007-06-02T14:00:00.000-04:002007-06-02T14:00:00.000-04:00Thank you, Father.Part of the problem with stating...Thank <I>you</I>, Father.<BR/><BR/><I>Part of the problem with stating your position and defending it with scripture is that a) anyone can do that with any scripture passage, and b) it often appears as proof-texting. That said, one also can't state a position without the benefit of a scriptural basis. So, here we go.</I><BR/><BR/>Nasty Protestant habit that, proof-texting. :) Scripture is a part of tradition; it must be read in context.<BR/><BR/><I>For starters, let's look at Matthew 25:31-46. This is the story of the final judgment, the sheep and the goats, the righteous and the damned...</I><BR/><BR/>The person who loves God and neighbour but no matter how he tries 'misses the mark' in one or more departments has a good chance of heaven - certainly that includes the 'GLBT' - while the self-righteous face the terrifying possibility of hell. At least on that I think we agree.<BR/><BR/><I>We are in the business of welcoming the outsider, outcast and sinner. We are here to recover the lost.<BR/><BR/>I will welcome all people into the church. There are rubrics and canons to be followed, to be sure, but ultimately</I> You Are Welcome Here.<BR/><BR/>Here we aren't that far apart at all... fits with <I>'all are welcome to come and pray in a Catholic church'.</I><BR/><BR/>But another part of that English, Anglican and Catholic tolerant conservatism in our heritage (too easygoing for the Puritans?) was summed up in a folksy way recently by a commenter in a conservative Anglican blog:<BR/><BR/><I>I have dear friends who are in all kinds of trouble and I love them. But that don't make what they do right.</I><BR/><BR/>Part of the church's job is to do both of these things: welcome but like Jesus say 'go and sin no more'.<BR/><BR/>That is, 'God loves you and so do I but that don't make what you do right'.<BR/><BR/>We're not called to be self-righteous but we are called to be righteous.<BR/><BR/><I>A gay couple living faithfully and in fidelity can just as easily be an example of a loving couple and God's grace as can a straight couple.</I><BR/><BR/>A good friend and unofficial theological adviser of mine came up with a good answer to that:<BR/><BR/><I>To my mind, if you're going to raise up sodomy from its traditional place in moral theology, and still condemn certain other positions, you have to do some theological heavy lifting. The Roman position, although demanding and counter-cultural, is at least consistent. The "reappraiser" position, which allows same-sex gratification, but still wants to take a stand against polyamory, prostitution, consensual incest, etc., etc., is a theological house of cards.</I><BR/><BR/>(IOW if you're going to redefine Christian marriage why stop at two people? More love to go round.)<BR/><BR/>Getting back to the sheep and the goats, and speaking of inclusion, 'who's in and who's out' etc., none of this presumes to say anybody is definitely hellbound any more than (going back to an example from my chat with Fr Haller) your friend and fellow minister turning down a request to have a secular funeral in her church was a statement damning the dead man!<BR/><BR/><I>He won't be found among the ultra-pure churches.</I><BR/><BR/>That needs some explaining. There's a difference between self-righteous people and a 'pure' infallible church. Catholics believe the church is the sinless bride of Christ, infallible and indefectible. Of course that's not true of its members individually! There's the paradox of course (like the Incarnation - true God <I>and</I> true man in one person?! - though of course Jesus was sinless) of the infallible church made up of sinful people.<BR/><BR/>Of course in one sense 'we are the church' but as long as one remembers 'I ≠ the sinless church' things should work out fine. :)<BR/><BR/>(I fixed the spelling and re-posted this: after all I am an editor.)Ecgberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06354592772973677609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6020471.post-40693247452266176332007-06-02T09:16:00.000-04:002007-06-02T09:16:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Ecgberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06354592772973677609noreply@blogger.com