tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1692793350977058371.post6267127187883853856..comments2023-04-09T05:18:06.643-05:00Comments on Into the Expectation: Getting off the Fence – Testimony (1)Matt Gunterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11230570081324464033noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1692793350977058371.post-58474343092004157862012-10-27T12:00:26.643-05:002012-10-27T12:00:26.643-05:00Andrew,
Thanks. Yes, at the least, Christians nee...Andrew,<br /><br />Thanks. Yes, at the least, Christians need to do much better at addressing these questions with more honesty and charity whether defending the tradition or not.<br /><br />It would make a difference if the American church was characterized by self-sacrifice. But our indulgence in so many other areas of life compromises our insistence sacrifice in matters sexual. And that is true with regard to single straight people as well as gays and lesbians.<br /><br />Matt<br />Matt Gunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11230570081324464033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1692793350977058371.post-23479199772857416052012-10-27T11:54:05.256-05:002012-10-27T11:54:05.256-05:00Dave,
Thanks for reading and for commenting. You a...Dave,<br />Thanks for reading and for commenting. You ask some good questions.<br /><br />I hope to address them more fully in some of the upcoming posts in this series. But, briefly:<br /><br />"does the blessing of same-gender relationships embrace a certain myth of our culture than in order to be a fully-human, adult human being, one must experience such romantic love?"<br /><br />It might be important to distinguish romantic love from sexual consummation although they are obviously related. From the perspective of the tradition, theoretically two men could have ‘romantic’ love for one another and not sin as long as they do nothing sexual, right? <br /><br />But, maybe that is where some of the catch is. It is a contemporary cultural myth that one cannot be a fully human adult without having sex. But that is problematic in multiple ways. As you point out it calls into question the vocation of sexual abstinence in singleness as well as the monastic vocation of celibacy. But it also reduces romantic love and marriage – and by extension SSU – to the regular availability of licit sex.But, sexual expression is just one of the goods of that vocation and not the central good.<br /><br />Our culture does contain a tangle multiple competing myths about what constitute the good life. One of the tasks of the church in every generation and every culture is to tease out the distinctive Christian vision in the midst of that even as there will be inevitable similarities:<br /><br />• Does accepting that there might be some justifications for divorce beyond adultery, e.g., physical abuse, abandonment, necessarily mean embracing a culture of divorce that undermines the discipleship of those who stay married in spite of considerable hardship? (see, http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/october/20.26.html)<br /><br />• Does allowing that sometimes a congregation can become so toxic as too require leaving necessarily embrace the consumer mentality of church shopping/church hopping that undercuts the hard discipleship stability?<br /><br />• Does affirming the just war theory necessarily embrace the blank check approach that says whenever my nation declares war it is ipso facto just, which seems to be the cultural default? And for that matter, does just war undercut the vocation of those who have embraced Christian non-violence (which itself needs differentiating from other similar ideals) and do those who embrace Christian non-violence necessarily undercut those who have decided that taking up arms might be a form of discipleship?<br /><br />In each of these examples and others, discipleship calls for prudent discernment. And things <br />‘on the ground’ are likely to be less clear-cut than we would like and even the best of motives are likely to be less than pure. So your question is the right kind of question to ask.<br /><br />As I admit in both of the posts so far, I wish the Episcopal Church was more clear in this regard and that lack of clarity is one of the reasons I found it hard to vote for the provisional rite. <br /><br />The only question that matters regarding SSU is can such unions be redemptive and sanctifying or are they always and only sinful? Which of course begs the questions, What is holy? and What is sin? Those questions I will save for later.<br /><br />Why, assuming such unions can be a means of sanctification, would they necessarily undercut the vocation of singleness any more than does marriage? Or vice versa for that matter? Or any more than the monastic vocation undercuts the vocation of marriage or vice versa? The vocations of singleness, monastic life, and marriage have, at the church’s best been seen as equally valid track toward holiness. I am suggesting that SSU might be understood as another.<br /><br />Finally, I think the church in America (and not just TEC) needs to reclaim a seriousness about the pursuit of holiness. That includes a reclaiming of chastity. In this I agree with the bishop of Southern Ohio, Tom Breidenthal who while affirming SSU has argued for a return to the ideal of abstinence outside of traditional marriage or covenanted SSU.<br /><br />Again, thanks for engaging. Please let me know what you thinbk of this.<br /><br />MattMatt Gunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11230570081324464033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1692793350977058371.post-86471237827053635602012-10-25T22:16:18.554-05:002012-10-25T22:16:18.554-05:00Thanks again, Father.
"Are we calling gays a...Thanks again, Father.<br /><br /><i>"Are we calling gays and lesbians to a living sacrifice for the sake of their souls or to a sacrifice of death for the sake of the rest of us? (I will come back to sacrifice in a later post. I think it is a concept all Christians need to reclaim in pursuit of holness)."</i><br /><br />I think about that question all the time. And I think that's why I'm supportive of blessing SSU, because what is the alternative? Darkness and bullying? Keeping things in the closet? Enforced celibacy? Shame? Are we (the Church) asking LGBT persons to do things that we'd never ask of anyone else, and why?<br /><br />Also, I think everybody needs to reclaim the later. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1692793350977058371.post-12528749120575914002012-10-25T09:08:54.974-05:002012-10-25T09:08:54.974-05:00Matt+,
Thanks for this post. As they used to say...Matt+, <br /><br />Thanks for this post. As they used to say on the AM radio stations (back when those were a thing), I'm a long time reader, first time commenter. <br /><br />I'm interested in your series of posts here, but am wondering about the following question. <br /><br />You mentioned celibacy briefly in your post here and in your initial post in the series. A significant reservation I have about the Episcopal Church's blessing of same-gender relationships is the wider Christian tradition's emphasis on celibacy as a specific vocation given for service to Christ's body (even if we as Protestants mean something slightly different in that than our Catholic friends). <br /><br />There are lots of folks in the Church who are not celibate by choice, but who choose to embrace celibacy anyway for whatever time they are unmarried (folks like me who are single and never married, widow(er)s, divorcees, etc.). There are also folks who are not celibate by choice because they are attracted to persons of the same gender, but who embrace celibacy as an act of discipleship. Does the blessing of same-gender relationships undercut the vocations of these people? Does it undermine their importance to Christ's body? Finally, does the blessing of same-gender relationships embrace a certain myth of our culture than in order to be a fully-human, adult human being, one must experience such romantic love (and if so, what does that say to the 50 year old widow, or to the 45 year old single, never married woman on our vestry, or folks like them)?<br /><br />Thanks in advance for engaging with this question - I look forward to the remainder of your series.Dave Mnoreply@blogger.com