Monday, February 08, 2010

GREAT Op-ed this morning: "Have Faith in Love"

by Eric Lax

"My own faith has eroded over the years, though my father’s belief in the supremacy of love still guides me. And so I can’t help but wonder, how can Christians not recognize and honor love that binds two people, any two people, together unto themselves? And if a priest has fulfilled her sacred duties with the distinction that persuades those to whom she would minister to elect her their bishop, and has led an open life of committed love that honors the essence of their God, why should her choice of a partner matter?"

read it all here ...

15 comments:

LGMarshall said...

It's interesting that Eric Lax was able to include some scripture that explains the immorality ('unholy, profane, unnatural, shameless') of homosexual unions.(1 TIM, 1 COR, & Romans.) (DEUT calls it an abomination).

But, not sure about his argument that since the gospels have differing accounts on who was at the tomb, then that proves, that God approves of homosexual acts.

He disses Marriage saying it wasn't a sacrament until 12th Century...(what? the Jews didn't have marriage?-- not to mention Adam & Eve, male/female archetype.)

He says, 'Have faith in Love.'... [not God]. Such a tragic statement, and supremely arrogant. Mostly, because human Love, fails -- every time. (one needs only to ask ones spouse.) Our inability to Love, just points to our need of a perfect advocate. No one can replace Jesus in our lives.

In his writing about faith, it's curious that he ends it with ..."My own faith has eroded over the years". (That must break a Father's heart to hear the Son say that. )

Martin T. said...

No one can legislate their version of what's moral and what isn't in our constitution. The Church itself is an entirely different matter. As good and gentle that +Gene and Mary+ might be, they have caused much scandal in our Church, no doubt. If they were celibate, there would be little to no static. But until I hear a mention of a constitutional amendment to ban atheists and other non-Jews/Christians from having a CIVIL marriage, your argument doesn't have a whole lot of bearing. No one is talking about the Sacrament of Matrimony here. That should be preserved for a man/woman. The state/ federal government doesn't administer any sacraments.

uffda51 said...

I have a hard time understanding the notion that +Gene and +Mary have caused a “scandal.” Their only “crime” has been rigorous honesty. The proposed “solution” is an fact a punishment – lifelong celibacy. And all in the name of preventing some people from feeling uncomfortable. Should we likewise refrain from mentioning that Adam and Eve weren’t real people because this, too, might make some folks uncomfortable?

What makes me uncomfortable is the fact that +Gene had to wear a bullet-proof vest at his ordination.

Martin T. said...

Oh yes it is indeed a scandal, and it is because of +Gene that ACNA even came to existence. I don't understand how it is a "punishment" to be honest with you. It's a sacrifice yes, that's why ordination period is sacred. This is the TRUE cost of discipleship. Our bishops aren't just bishops of his or her respective diocese, but "bishops of the whole Church". So yes, I believe if you are throwing your collar in the ring to be a bishop and you are homosexual,you should be celibate. Bishops are supposed to represent unity. Gene+ and Mary+ being in a non-celibate status, broke this unity we had with the entire Anglican Communion. You can't compare this to female ordination because it is actually written in scripture and history that women did lead in the Church. This isn't about being comfortable, it's about unity. The vote today at the General Synod about ACNA should be a wake up call for us all.

Martin T. said...

You're absolutely right about how uncomfortable it is about +Gene having to wear a bullet proof vest. The fact that this even have had to occur speaks volumes about his election. The fact that he was and is still shunned by the Anglican Communion as a whole speaks volumes about his election. Aren't you sick and tired about our Church being in the news because of sex issues when there are people out there that need to hear the Gospel? Look at the trouble all this has caused, and for what? Unlike those in ACNA and other wannabe Anglicans in this country, I will stay put in TEC, because someone needs to get our Church back on the right track.

SUSAN RUSSELL said...

Martin ... what I'm sick and tired of are people scapegoating the LGBT baptized for all the problems that plague this church and this communion.

AND I'm sick of the perpetuation of the rot-gut-ignorance that places the beginning of "our troubles" in 2003 with the election of the Bishop of New Hampshire.


Do your homework. And then get back to me. Or don't. But make your arguments out of at least a baseline level of awareness of the history of this church and commmunion since at LEAST 1974 ... and recognize that the "people out there who need to hear the Gospel" and aren't hearing it aren't NOT hearing it because of the Bishop of New Hampshire -- or the bishop-elect in Los Angeles -- but because of the strategic agenda of absolutist idealogues who are determined to split the church they have been unsuccessful in recreating in their own image.

Martin T. said...

Well Rev.Russel, I'm very much aware of the history of this Church and there has NEVER been anything to plague this Church so badly before until the election of +Gene. Those that left over the ordination of women didn't go to the extremes of ACNA: stealing property, money, actively working to get us removed from the Anglican Communion and replacing us as the Anglican presence in the United States. Do you not realize what this vote today at the Synod means? It means a den of thieves have been given a voice and credibility today. Remember the Nicene Creed: "We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins...", it doesn't mean "entry into a club in which we can do whatever we choose". You can call it scapegoating all day but with all due respect, it doesn't erase the fact that having non-celibate homosexual bishops was the straw that truly broke the camel's back. To every action there is a reaction, and that reaction today came from the General Synod. Wake up!!!

SUSAN RUSSELL said...

Yes, I should step away ... but am choosing not to.

I grew up in the Diocese of Los Angeles where the drama over the ordination of women INCLUDED [a] lawsuits [b] property disputes and [c] the same kind of finger-pointing-and-shame/blaming&attacking as we've seen in this fiasco.

The shame in all this is that those who have been hell-bent on orchestrating this schism are now the ones leading the "ain't it awful" chorus.

We're a people of God who managed to figure out how to be both protestant and catholic in the 16th. We can certainly find a way to be both gay and straight in the 21st.

Instead we've seen the orchestration of a schism that serves the agenda of a theological minority in the Episcopal Church to outsource their dissatisfaction to the wider communion by continuing to insist that our differences have to become divisions.

Three word summary:

Shame On Them

Martin T. said...

You keep saying that again and again Rev.Russel, but what about our bishops being bishops of the whole Church? Because of the fact that diocesan bishops are bishops of the whole Church, it ceases to be a "theological difference" but an extreme division, because the very position that represents unity has been compromised. What is it about that that is so hard to understand? You can't compare female ordination to non-celibate homosexual ordination. The Diocese of Los Angeles' bluff has been called today, and yet you still remain oblivious to that or are you just plain stubborn? Which is it?

MarkBrunson said...

LGMarshall,

Do I have to call you out yet again on why we are perfectly capable of providing a better moral compass than those who are supposed to have written scripture? Really? Do I need to bring up the sterling examples - yet AGAIN - of Rachel, Leah and Jacob, of the rape of Tamara, or the seduction of Bathsheba, or the deception of Isaac by Jacob, or the inconsistencies between the Gospel's instructions and the epistles' interpretations?

Again?

Martin,

You really would be happier as a Catholic.

What you posit has never been part of TEC's or PECUSA's or - for that matter - CofE's understanding of "Church."

I understand ignorance, but don't condone it.

Martin T. said...

Hi Mark, just a quick question: Who are you to tell me what I would be happier as? The RCC is deeply in error and has their priorities backward. You calling me "ignorant" doesn't make it so. Can you counter my opinions or is all you are capable of is attacking me? You don't exactly bring much credibility to your side of the aisle.

SUSAN RUSSELL said...

REMEDIAL READING ASSIGNMENT FOR ALL COMMENTERS:

Please re-read the "comments about comments" above. We're moving into ad hominem land -- which is precisely why Jesus invented the "delete comment" button.

Martin T. said...

Ok lets start here then, because one of my statements have been ignored for some time now: Are Bishops just Bishops of their respective diocese or are they also "Bishops of the whole Church"? Then we can go from there.

LGMarshall said...

M.Brunson.-- this looks like the 'tit for tat' blog.

So, you are perfectly capable of providing a better moral compass than those that 'supposedly' wrote the scriptures? Interesting.

Jesus Christ himself wrote the Scriptures. And he called homosexual acts, shameless, profane, unholy.

Jesus, the Creator, the Great Counselor, the Advocate, the Great Attorney, argued his case against homosexuality in his account of Genesis, at Creation. He made Adam & and he made Eve.

Yes God is merciful, but he can only be Just when you appear in Court. Do you really think fleeting pleasure is worth losing eternal Life?

uffda51 said...

LG, you do understand that Genesis is beautiful poetry, but that it is not literal history - right? You do understand that Adam and Eve were not real people?