tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post5440281467889560914..comments2023-12-17T16:13:06.670-05:00Comments on In a Godward direction: Musings after ReposeTobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-85016824732193593932009-08-22T13:59:56.349-05:002009-08-22T13:59:56.349-05:00IT
I think you're right, because I live where ...IT<br />I think you're right, because I live where I do I have personal experience of the differentiation there is among "their side". There are those who will use religious convictions to deny us civil rights, which is about as appalling as it gets. And those who wear their hatred very openly on their sleeves.<br />Unlike you, I have only ever read about them in the papers and sometimes met them on the blogs. But they've had no lasting effect on my life.<br /><br />The ones I see on Andrew's blog are genuinely struggling, either with a new awareness, or with the different religious imperatives that seem to conflict here: while they are meant to believe we're sinful, they nevertheless feel they ought to "love" us and that that means something very important. <br /><br />And so I engage with them. Sometimes incredolous at the level of ignorance about us and our lives, but usually much more deeply touched by the growing awareness of just how real and deep their struggles are.<br /><br />And so I stay there... often with great reluctance... often wondering just how they could have missed the last 30 years of conversation in society and in the church ... but willing to make myself vulnerable, to contribute my own story, to make the conversation "real" and not about an amorphous "them".<br />I don't know how long I'll have the strength to do it for, but while I can, I will continue to engage.Erika Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01812376497361267014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-67584275537113937392009-08-22T09:36:03.659-05:002009-08-22T09:36:03.659-05:00Fr Michael,
The situation described in Genesis wo...Fr Michael,<br /><br />The situation described in Genesis would not meet the definition of marriage as commonly understood since at least the middle ages, as requiring both consent and coitus. Consent may have come prior to the fall, but the Scripture is explicit that coitus came afterwards.<br /><br />Obviously adultery was on Jesus' mind in his excursus on divorce. But he did not follow through on the rabbinic teaching that marriage was a requirement.<br /><br />Fornication, in the scriptural documents, does not mean "sex outside of marriage" but "sex with a woman with whom one could not enter a licit marriage."<br /><br />Finally, people married and were given in marriage, as Jesus says, in the days of Noah -- long before Genesis was written. And I hope you are not among those who insist that Genesis 1-2 describes literal history.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-45950129595915667582009-08-21T23:10:50.969-05:002009-08-21T23:10:50.969-05:00Sorry that I'm late to the conversation.
&quo...Sorry that I'm late to the conversation.<br /><br />"that Genesis offers us a “one size fits all” divine pattern for all human sexual relations."<br /><br />I would say that, for first principles, that Genesis offers us a "one size fits all" description of marriage. I say this for two reasons:<br /><br />1) It describes marriage prior to the Fall<br /><br />2) It is referred to directly by the Savior in Mk 10:1-10 and its parallels.<br /><br />Throw in the biblical condemnations of adultery and fornication and it's easy to derive a blanket condemnation of non-marital sexuality.<br /><br /> <br />FrMichaelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-64440961850055486082009-08-21T19:43:38.546-05:002009-08-21T19:43:38.546-05:00I've engaged Andrew Marin at his blog and he r...I've engaged Andrew Marin at his blog and he recently popped up on a related post at <a href="http://friends-of-jake.blogspot.com/2009/08/more-on-evangelical-outreach-and-being.html" rel="nofollow">Friends of Jake</a>. I have several links on that post to other sites addressing his book, so I urge anyone interested to take a look.<br /><br />I think the issue of his audience matters, but it also matters as he talks to that audience what he thinks of those he talks about. And, I agree with Dahveed he doesn't honor our relationships, because he thinks we're a sin. He equates (in a whole chapter ) gay identity with sexual behavior. He sees "GLBT" and "christians" as non-intersecting groups.<br /><br />But still: he's making HIS side recognize us as people whom they have to work with, even live with. And I'll give him credit for that effort. <br /><br />Erika has more patience, perhaps, because living in a small community, she's seen it make a difference. My experience of "that side" is being flipped off on street corners and cursed during the Prop8 campaign.<br /><br />But: is it good or bad that Andrew Marin and Michael Spencer are trying to de-mythologize the GLBT for the evangelicals?<br /><br />I think it has to be good. <br /><br />Sorry to hijack your thread, tobias!IThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09605163506396013904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-75354112994007756472009-08-21T16:11:12.918-05:002009-08-21T16:11:12.918-05:00Hey, ask anyone here, I rarely post more than two ...Hey, ask anyone here, I rarely post more than two paragraphs!Brother Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333089314994730330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-81345070679318344162009-08-21T14:34:29.919-05:002009-08-21T14:34:29.919-05:00Hi David (Dah*veed):
From what I can tell (as a f...Hi David (Dah*veed):<br /><br />From what I can tell (as a former fundamentalist myself), I think Andrew's primary agenda with regard to the LGBT/Q community is to win over as many people as possible to a commitment to Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior--an agenda I share in its basic evangelical outlines but radically different in the moralistic implications that fundamentalists and other conservative evangelicals assume is the logical outworking of being "saved." <br /><br />I think you're right that in the back of his mind, he believes that eventually, any gay person who accepted Christ would, if truly open to the Holy Spirit's activity in his or her life, repent of same-sex activity and/or desire and wish to embrace the heterosexual identity that God wills for all human beings. But he is different from his compatriots in that he does not present this as necessary in order to be saved and to start living a Christian life--which is why his compatriots view him with suspicion. <br /><br />I think he has a radical trust that God will bring people around to where they should be, and the evangelical's confidence (hubris?) that he knows exactly where that is (in the land of happy straight people, of course).<br /><br />So I agree with Erika that such people are worth engaging in, because it doesn't matter whether they're right or wrong about the moral implications of their agenda, if at the top of that agenda is a heart for winning souls for Christ. I myself used to hold Andrew's position, and would still were it not for the willingness of others to engage me with love and to hold me accountable to the imperatives of the Gospel that transcend any agenda I might have. <br /><br />While others believe that winning souls for Christ is part and parcel with winning boys for girls and vice-versa, Andrew is avoiding that way of approaching things because he rightly sees that it is impeding the presentation of the Gospel, just as much as the Judaizers impeded it when they taught that circumcision was a prerequisite for admission to the Christian community. In this sense, Andrew has a very Pauline mission, with the exception that he's still avowedly (by analogy) a semi-Judaizer--i.e., convert now, cut later...convert now, go str8 later. <br /><br />I'm cheering him on in his efforts to reach all people for Christ, as well in his calling his compatriots to account for their homophobia. I share your concern that the other part of his agenda may lead new converts to communities that will not respect or continue to validate people where they are, but I can't control that and I have to trust that God will take care of God's own.<br /><br />He's hardly a wolf in sheep's clothing. I would argue that at worst he's a sheep dog in sheep's clothing...<br /><br />NH+<br /><br />P.S. Wordy? Me?! (In this case you're the pot, I'm the kettle.)Nathan J.A. Humphreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18208109242962723992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-84603058089250499652009-08-21T12:34:20.277-05:002009-08-21T12:34:20.277-05:00Nathan
If you call that affirmation or validation,...Nathan<br />If you call that affirmation or validation, then yes, I am interested in the church offering it.<br />I personally don't call it that, I simply call it allowing one part of the church to offer something another does not have to offer.<br /><br />When I hear of priests blessing warships, I do not wish to affirm or validate that blessing, but I accept their right to bestow it.<br /><br />I think I am one step removed in terms of the level of approval I am looking for.<br /><br /><br />David<br />I think I hear what you are saying and I think I understand it. I merely happen not to agree with it, at least from my own personal point of view.<br /><br />The reason for that is that for me, accepting lgbt people is the hoped for (but not necessarily important) goal of any conversation with evangelicals, not a condition for it.<br />And I also know that people are changed by the conversations they have, and that this change is hardly ever the kind of thing they had been envisaging at the outset.<br /><br />And here is an evangelical who says "I don't see things like you (yet), but I don't see them like most of my rather judgemental and aggressive friends either. And I would like to get people to the stage where they treat you the same way they treat anybody else, regardless of what they think of you."<br />And to that, I want to say: I have experienced this kind of conversation, and as often as not it has resulted in a genuine conversion.<br />It is a conversation worth entering into.Erika Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01812376497361267014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-27263072382466118702009-08-21T11:47:47.025-05:002009-08-21T11:47:47.025-05:00Erika, (and I knew that you would follow me here!)...Erika, (and I knew that you would follow me here!) sometimes I fear that you miss the forest, for all the trees. I think that your description of what you wish from folks is validation. Maybe just hard for you to recognize for Nathan's wordiness.<br /><br />I have thought about our conversation at CA a lot. Perhaps too much because I was thinking about it when I drifted off to sleep last night, and it came immediately to mind upon awaking this morning. I think that you were not grasping my intention at CA. You were speaking past me and not catching my points, as if your nose was too close to the display. Back off a bit and try to fathom my point all at once. Maybe it is because you work as a translator. Being bilingual, I know that you know that you cannot translate word for word because it does not work. You have to translate concepts, and you would translate a technical manual differently than poetry or prose.<br /><br />Andrew Marin's work with Evangelicals is calling Evangelicals to repentance because he rightly believes that they have not followed the love imperative inherent in Christ's teachings in the way that they have dealt with GLBTQ folks currently and in the past. But really, that is a conversation amongst Evangelicals. He does not need our participation, GLBTQ participation, to have that discussion with his comrades in faith.<br /><br />But unless I truly misread the review of his book, he is involving GLBTQ folks in his project. And that sends up a flare. Especially when I read his statement about everyone having until their last breath to get it right and especially if he is attracting unwitting, vulnerable GLBTQ people to his kinder & gentler Evangelical approach to dealing with our communities. So my question regarding the sacredness of our sexuality and our relationships was a litmus test of his personal theology.<br /><br />As far as I am concerned he failed the test, which is why he could not answer me in a straightforward manner and why he high-tailed it out of the conversation as quickly as he had joined. The question may be the wrong type of question as he engages his Evangelical friends in his project, but it is very much the correct question for GLBTQ folks to ask before getting involved ourselves.<br /><br />As far as our communities are concerned, he is a wolf disguised as a sheep. His ultimate theological position is basically the same as his comrades. Our sexuality and our relationships are not sacred, they are not acceptable, and he is hopeful that for all his touchy feely, kinder & gentler approach some GLBTQ folks will be influenced enough to see the error of their way and embrace heterosexuality, as God intended everyone to be.<br /><br />There be monsters here!Brother Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333089314994730330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-8520485631711367372009-08-21T10:40:57.839-05:002009-08-21T10:40:57.839-05:00Hi Erika,
I couldn't agree with you more that...Hi Erika,<br /><br />I couldn't agree with you more that we need to get beyond the cardboard cut-out phase. And I think you're probably more self-differentiated, from what I've seen of your comments, than the average bean. <br /><br />Whether people believe they have the right to discriminate against you or not, they don't, and our civil laws should reflect and enforce your civil rights.<br /><br />Where affirmation becomes an issue is in the debate over whether the Church can and should offer its blessing to people who choose to live out their Christian discipleship within the context of an exclusive lifelong same-sex commitment, just as the Church has done for me and my wife in choosing to live out our discipleship in the context of an exclusive lifelong commitment to each other in Christian marriage.<br /><br />Andrew Marin, it seems to me, is ducking that issue of affirmation, and offering as much as he can instead, which is validation. In teaching others to validate as well, he is helping all of us to move beyond that cardboard cut-out phase, but he is not addressing the issue of whether the Church should formally affirm Christian discipleship within same-sex relationships.<br /><br />Framed this way, are you interested in the affirmation of the Church?<br /><br />Blessings,<br /><br />NH+Nathan J.A. Humphreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18208109242962723992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-88863356333974078492009-08-21T08:10:26.293-05:002009-08-21T08:10:26.293-05:00Nathan
I am neither interested in affirmation nor ...Nathan<br />I am neither interested in affirmation nor validation. What others think of me or my motives or my faith is of no concern to be whatsoever, unless they are my friend and members of my family.<br />What I am interested in is that people stop believing they have the right to discriminate against me because they do not accept that I alone am responsible for my own life before God.<br /><br />If Andrew Marrin can talk to people in a way that helps them to stop seeing me as a 2 dimensional cardboard cut-out but instead acknowledges that I am just like them, with the same rights and responsibilities regardless of what they think of me, then it is worth supporting him.<br /><br />Real listening to each other can only begin after we've overcome the cardboard cut-out phase.Erika Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01812376497361267014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-79145631454167380482009-08-21T01:48:22.886-05:002009-08-21T01:48:22.886-05:00That's my point, Tobias.
The very basis they ...That's my point, Tobias.<br /><br />The very basis they have for using "proof-texting" is a house of cards! If you are going to say that God is accurately represented in Scripture - fully represented, they would argue - then God is wildly fickle and changes his mind constantly, not to mention being a bloody tyrant. The theological "proof" that comes from the Bible amounts to the Bible is true because this is in it and it must be true because it's in the Bible! <br /><br />I wouldn't say that God doesn't change his mind, because the whole concept of a mind that can be changed is an entirely limited one; rather, I would say that God's Will is ineffable.MarkBrunsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971990948866488080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-40145656329922821522009-08-20T21:01:00.719-05:002009-08-20T21:01:00.719-05:00Courtesy of the Mad One, I commend The Modern Chur...Courtesy of <a href="http://revjph.blogspot.com/2009/08/sleeping-tiger-bites-wolf-in-sheeps.html" rel="nofollow">the Mad One</a>, I commend <a href="http://www.modchurchunion.org/resources/mcu/2009-1.htm" rel="nofollow">The Modern Churchpeople's Union article Communion, Covenant and our Anglican Future</a>, which (other than presenting what seems to me to be a good ecclesiological analysis of the movers of the Anglican Communion) subtly refers to you by indirection as supplying the theological analysis that Bishop Wright and Archbishop Williams are evidently ignorant of.<br /><br />And it's a shame that this had to be written. But glorious that it was.Paul (A.)https://www.blogger.com/profile/07543357437252555101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-75039090282187008902009-08-20T20:01:11.944-05:002009-08-20T20:01:11.944-05:00Agreeing to disagree may be a cop out or a techniq...Agreeing to disagree may be a cop out or a technique of conflict avoidance. Or it may be a recognition that there are other things more important to worry about.<br /><br />I was in Mississippi during Katrina, and our rector (along with a lot of other people) spent a lot of time on the coast looking after those who bore the brunt of the storm. They worked alongside Southern Baptists, Methodists, and anyone else who was willing to show up. One of his comments coming back was that not one of the people he was helping asked him how he stood on the affair of +Gene Robinson.<br /><br />That Mississippi parish was not consumed with talk about this issue. And, perhaps, we were avoiding conflict. I do that every day when I avoid discussions of politics and religion. Just the same, it did me a great deal of good to work alongside conservative southerners who thought differently about these issues than I did. I will never again see conservatives as "the enemy" no matter how much I may disagree with them. TEC could do with a bit of that attitude.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02410143259690873128noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-70290130700583506752009-08-20T16:49:25.530-05:002009-08-20T16:49:25.530-05:00Dahveed, I agree with you on the CA blog.Dahveed, I agree with you on the CA blog.IThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09605163506396013904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-3662484272795688922009-08-20T14:43:03.089-05:002009-08-20T14:43:03.089-05:00Doubleday used to publish a bible with the content...Doubleday used to publish a bible with the contents in order of their writing (as far as scholarship had determined at the time). So the New Testament starts with Paul.<br /><br />I wonder if Genesis would carry so much weight if it appeared in the canon somewhere around Daniel . . .<br /><br />MurdochMurdoch Matthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10584498192562407670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-60445375417069671002009-08-20T12:41:49.520-05:002009-08-20T12:41:49.520-05:00Dah*veed, I think Tobias is right that Andrew Mari...Dah*veed, I think Tobias is right that Andrew Marin's M.O. is to avoid judgement calls in his work. The most interesting thing I got from the Goddard review is Marin's perception that LGBT/Q folk are hungry for affirmation, but respect the integrity and love inherent in validation. The difference between affirmation and validation is that the former affirms that what you are doing is A-OK, while the latter affirms that you believe it's A-OK and that your belief is in good faith. Validation may also go so far as to say that I don't know whether it's A-OK or not, but I will trust that your experience is not entirely fallacious and will look for God at work in you, rather than seeking to prove that God is not at work in you; and this is coupled with the humble hope that you will return the validation of where I am coming from--that is, you will recognize that even if I can't fully affirm you, it is not out of any desire to judge you or find you wanting, simply out of an open engagement that seeks God's best for both of us in honest dialogue.<br /><br />I think a lot of conservatives are afraid even to validate because to do so appears to them to be the wedge-end of affirmation, the beginning of the slippery slope (and indeed, for many of us who start in the conservative camp and move more to the moderate or progressive side slowly, it is!).<br /><br />Personally speaking, I think the fear of even validating LGBT/Q experience is wrapped up in homophobia. But pointing this out to a conservative is hardly ever constructive. I am hoping that Marin's book shakes up the conservative evangelical community so that, even if it doesn't end up affirming the so-called "Gay Agenda," it will begin to work through its ingrained homophobia.Nathan J.A. Humphreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18208109242962723992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-11728224419003458672009-08-20T11:50:34.276-05:002009-08-20T11:50:34.276-05:00Dahveed,
I'm reluctant to hazard an answer as ...Dahveed,<br />I'm reluctant to hazard an answer as I've not read Marin's book and only skimmed Goddard's review. I am fully confident that Jesus would approve (in fact, does approve) such faithful relationships, based on my reading of his moral teaching. Jesus never appeals to "taboo" and external purity, but is always directing his moral teaching to the heart of virtues of love, fidelity, and internal purity of motive and action, "loving the neighbor as oneself." I"m afraid I don't really understand Marin's answer about the "wrong question" except that he appears to be urging a restraint from judgment (and perhaps action) either in the direction of condemnation or approbation.<br /><br />Which brings me to Nathan's astute observation. The difference, in the present case, is that we should not expect to turn to the status quo ante, and we are no longer in the equivalent of the pre-Civil Rights South. Change is happening, and will go on happening, and it is about whether the change is right or not that we will continue to disagree. I am not arguing for inaction or stasis, but for and agreement not to let such developments separate us. It is only "conflict-avoidance" in the sense that we decide it is not a matter for conflict, even if it is a matter for disagreement. To use your powerful analogy, the wife might well have the abortion in spite of her husband's disagreement, but they wouldn't divorce over it. That, to me, is a true agreement to disagree. That is not the same things as "agreeing not to act if one party doesn't like something" -- which is essentially allowing one side to "win" -- which is the real language of conflict-avoidance, since once one side "wins" the conflict is over as far as they are concerned. There are certainly elements of this in the present debates over sexuality -- and we are trying to move past them.<br /><br />On your other note, I agree that seeing each other as faithful Christians is important. It is, I think, a supreme irony that it is the "conservatives" who adopt a post-modern hermeneutic in response to a "progressive's" affirmation that she says the creed without crossing her fingers, "Ah, but you don't <i>mean</i> the same thing I do when you say those words!" We live in strange times...Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-73234943763505931762009-08-20T11:22:47.749-05:002009-08-20T11:22:47.749-05:00I really appreciated as well what Christopher wrot...I really appreciated as well what Christopher wrote about approaching Genesis as descriptive of God's relationship to us in the here-and-now. I often think that, second only to engaging in a relationship with a real live human being on the other side of the divide, the most threatening thing to entrenched traditionalists isn't a well-reasoned argument on the "hot-button" issue, but an articulate testimony that is clearly grounded in the Great Tradition--that is, which is unmistakeably the Gospel truth in terms a conservative can hear and embrace. It is oh so disconcerting to encounter someone whom one has labelled a "liberal" and hear that person talk about Jesus in a way that speaks to your heart. When that happens, traditionlists either get very suspicious that the "liberal" is just playing postmodern language games, or is forced to recognize that such a person is, indeed, a brother or sister in Christ.<br /><br />It is a most uncomfortable feeling to see Jesus where we don't want to see him.<br /><br />(And of course, the same is true of entrenched liberals who don't want to see Jesus at work in conservatives...)Nathan J.A. Humphreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18208109242962723992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-46913661054281361002009-08-20T11:15:47.716-05:002009-08-20T11:15:47.716-05:00I have problems with the phrase "agree to dis...I have problems with the phrase "agree to disagree" because it is limited in its efficacy. Two white men in the 1960s South could "agree to disagree" about Jim Crow, but doing so only smoothed over their own relationship and did nothing to address concretely not simply the "issue" but the conditions under which non-whites lived. I can "agree to disagree" with my wife over abortion, but this won't do if my wife wants to have an abortion and I don't want her to--or vice-versa. Such "agreement" is really tantamount to conflict avoidance, isn't it?Nathan J.A. Humphreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18208109242962723992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-88093871744088891322009-08-20T10:27:51.640-05:002009-08-20T10:27:51.640-05:00OT -
Father Tobias, I have been engaged in a con...OT - <br /><br />Father Tobias, I have been engaged in a <a href="http://changingattitude-england.blogspot.com/2009/08/love-is-orientation-book-every.html#comments" rel="nofollow">conversation at Changing Attitude UK</a> regarding a book review and a ministry of Andrew Marin. The book is Love is an Orientation, his ministry the marin Foundation. After reading Andrew Goddard's review of the book I was suspect of all the hoopla because I detect a hidden agenda and said so.<br /><br />Andrew Marin himself waded into the discussion. I asked him, "Do you accept the monogamous, faithful, same gender relationships of gay, lesbian and bisexual folks, as well as the sexual identities and monogamous, faithful, relationships of transgender folks, as holy and equally acceptable before God as mixed gender marriages?"<br /><br />His answer in part, "...I believe you're asking the wrong question (close-ended vs. open-ended and Jesus' responses to each)."<br /><br />May I have some feedback feedback?Brother Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333089314994730330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-82655650734700339562009-08-20T09:52:21.320-05:002009-08-20T09:52:21.320-05:00Thank you, Dahveed. I think it is important to not...Thank you, Dahveed. I think it is important to note that by "Reason" Hooker would have included what Wesley called "experience" -- the meaning of the word "reason" had shifted by Wesley's time, as a result of the Enlightenment. Hooker's "reason" is a broader category of humanist rationality, which includes the capacity to integrate one's experience rightly into a manner of living.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-4147644086344423482009-08-20T09:45:48.031-05:002009-08-20T09:45:48.031-05:00Kevin, I recently remarked in a discussion elsewhe...Kevin, I recently remarked in a discussion elsewhere that whereas most Anglicans claim to sit on a 3-legged stool, that I am an Anglican who sits on a 4-legged stool. I started my theological education in a United Methodist seminary and subscribe to the Wesleyan Quadrilateral; scripture, tradition, reason and experience.<br /><br /><i>in most cases it comes about through getting to know GLBT persons, seeing them in ordinary life, experiencing them engaged in ministry that challenges prior assumptions and changes minds and hearts.</i><br />That intrinsic experience that speaks internally against all the scripture, tradition and reason of a lifetime is very powerfully persuasive. Many of us lean to the idea that it is the quiet whisperings of Holy Spirit.Brother Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333089314994730330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-52977047033652188892009-08-20T09:38:53.020-05:002009-08-20T09:38:53.020-05:00Thank you, Laura. It is a joy to be in the company...Thank you, Laura. It is a joy to be in the company of one of the great American theologians.<br /><br />Mark, that traditionalist argument comes from proof-texting -- taking one quote about God not changing his mind out of context. In the sense that God's purpose is always Love, God doesn't change. But the Scripture offers many explicit examples of God changing the law -- which is what progressives assert is possible, and which is what the traditionalists usually are responding to with their proof-text. God <i>does</i> change the his own law, many times. I devote a section of my book to this very subject. Otherwise, as I note, we'd all still be required to be vegetarians.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-37293079652070136752009-08-20T09:36:51.771-05:002009-08-20T09:36:51.771-05:00Mark, I do not think that God ever changes God'...Mark, I do not think that God ever changes God's mind.<br /><br />But some of us are not as good at mind reading as we think that we are!Brother Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333089314994730330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-56358761323151151922009-08-20T02:51:06.259-05:002009-08-20T02:51:06.259-05:00One of the huge problems I have with these alleged...One of the huge problems I have with these alleged traditionalists is that they use the argument "God doesn't change, so God doesn't change His mind," and then apply that to the Bible.<br /><br />Well, if that's the case, they should be killing us, stoning us to death, not just censuring us. Laurie Cabot should be the most endangered species in America. In point of fact, these "Christians" should be murdering left, right and center. <br /><br />If God's mind is presented accurately in Scripture.<br /><br />Even if you argue, "Well, we were told not to kill people like that in the New Testament," then you've just shown that, as far as Scripture is concerned, God <b>does</b> change His mind.<br /><br />If God's mind is presented accurately in Scripture.MarkBrunsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971990948866488080noreply@blogger.com