tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post8576283641598843629..comments2024-03-28T09:52:15.415-04:00Comments on Common Denominator: Loving into Societal Structures (8) (W)Ken Schenckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09745548537303356655noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-59610513969694959792011-03-05T13:42:53.069-05:002011-03-05T13:42:53.069-05:00FRGregACCA,
I beg to differ with you on revolution...FRGregACCA,<br />I beg to differ with you on revolution. What happened to those that sought asylum on America's shores? Did any of them join in the political activism of the revolution? Did any serve in the Revolutionary Army? I think so!<br /><br />You are under the opinion that to be Christian means that one submits to oppressive rule, domination, and political tyranny? This is the "traditional stance" of the Christian historically, as they were the under-dogs of society. Are there no "Christian rulers" then? Or is "Christian ruler" associated with Constantinianism? and that might undermine a certain agenda for "missions"?<br /><br />"Christian" is just like "American", there are as many definitions as there are types of people...Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-71008108803983629552011-03-05T13:34:37.119-05:002011-03-05T13:34:37.119-05:00Dick,
That is certainly a valid position in the co...Dick,<br />That is certainly a valid position in the conservative segment. And aren't you glad that you have just as much right to hold your position as the Westboro Baptist Church does? and those that are more liberal do? even the gay activist?<br /><br />Our society is based on "voices" being heard and policy being made from such voices. So, our culture wars are what makes for our government's values.<br /><br />You should hold up the First Amendment as a right for religious expression, from government interference.Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-72875905977984871462011-03-05T13:33:20.660-05:002011-03-05T13:33:20.660-05:00Well done, Ken! I speak both of the original post ...Well done, Ken! I speak both of the original post and your response to Dick.<br /><br />Dick, speaking only for myself and not in any way for my jurisdiction, I think that the jury is still out with regard to HOW gay people are saved, and, as Ken says, the Gamaliel test is very much in order. It is clear, of course, that God indeed loves gay people as God loves all people. The issue is the status of homosexuality itself: is it something that one can be redeemed IN, or is it something that one can only be saved FROM?<br /><br />Because I think that the jury remains out, I am therefore content to allow for an inter-jurisdictional pluralism regarding the matter.<br /><br />Beyond that, it is clear that the early Church begins on the "Kingdom trajectory" with regard to the role of women (as with living communally), but backs off in the face of social conditions. The Church is not a revolutionary body; it is SUBVERSIVE. I have written recently at some length on my own blog concerning this. The link is found below.<br /><br />BTW, y'all: it is largely the question of the ordination and role of women in the Church that separates me, and my jurisdiction, from mainstream Orthodoxy.<br /><br />http://vagantepriest.blogspot.com/2011/02/progressive-dynamic-tradition-part-ii.htmlFrGregACCAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00368463715994694203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-17082294242004448712011-03-05T13:12:24.237-05:002011-03-05T13:12:24.237-05:00I'm not sure how the "kingdom trajectory&...I'm not sure how the "kingdom trajectory" of scripture is proved. The same Paul who wrote Gal. 3:28 early in his ministry, also wrote Eph. 5 and Col. 3 later in his ministry. The trajectory on women's roles seems to be going the wrong direction! Maybe the answer lies in other directions, like "equal in status," but "different in roles" for men and women.Dick Nortonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-23880581218864368992011-03-05T12:52:17.688-05:002011-03-05T12:52:17.688-05:00BTW, I posted a YouTube video of a testimony of a ...BTW, I posted a YouTube video of a testimony of a man who'd grown up in a household with two mothers. He testified that he was heterosexual and in all other ways completely "normal". He was sucessfully accomplishing his goals, etc. Intersting, if what we are concerned for is the state of soceity and its social structures...which is important for human flourishing...Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-61951030064134499782011-03-05T12:44:15.862-05:002011-03-05T12:44:15.862-05:00I have understood the context of homosexual relati...I have understood the context of homosexual relations (Romans 1) as inapporpriate due to the lust/desire apart from appropriate boundaries.<br /><br />Boundaries around a relgionship are what define marriage. Whether the couple is homosexual or not and how they express the sexual union if not the issue. It is their commitment to each other that is the important issue. Loyalty and fidelity, which are character traits, not biological traits.<br /><br />A aimilar trajectory can be argued for the husband/wife. If the wife has certain gifts, it is not her biology that limits her gifts. So whether it is a slave (economic), wife (sociological) or homosexual (biological), the "Kingdom of God" is not bound by such matters.Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-15669145050974533972011-03-05T10:56:14.632-05:002011-03-05T10:56:14.632-05:00There are some significant differences between the...There are some significant differences between the husband-wife question and the question of homosexual marriage, as you know, although I accept your question as very appropriate push-back. I also know that you believe God loves the homosexual as much as he loves us ;-)<br /><br />Here's just a few quick differences that came to mind:<br /><br />1. Same-sex sexual relationships are not part of the kingdom trajectory of Scripture, while the non-subordination of women to men is (e.g., Mark 12; Gal. 3:28). In other words, homosexual sex is only mentioned negatively in the Bible.<br /><br />2. The subordination of wives to husbands in Genesis is a consequence of Eve's sin, implying that Christ's atonement must in some way, sooner or later, undo it. It seems difficult to find any valid reason not to move closer to the kingdom now, as we did with slavery.<br /><br />I accept your push back as important to consider. In my view, however, I am not creating the questions. They are there already to be worked out. But I also relax in the ironic faith of Gamaliel in Acts 5:38-39: "If this plan or this undertaking is of human origin, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them—in that case you may even be found fighting against God!”<br /><br />If you and I are wrong on anything, God will move forward nonetheless in the right direction.Ken Schenckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09745548537303356655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-86011637764400866832011-03-05T10:39:46.686-05:002011-03-05T10:39:46.686-05:00Ken, if the "ancient social structures of the...Ken, if the "ancient social structures of the home" are assumed by the scriptures, then that could mean that "husband" and "wife" are part of that ancient social structure. So in the new understanding we are living by in these more enlightened days, perhaps the home could be "husband/husband" or wife/wife, right? Because God loves the homosexual just as much as He loves us.Dick Nortonnoreply@blogger.com