tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5403232.post115781881432211252..comments2024-02-10T08:46:51.419-05:00Comments on Rude Armchair Theology: The Archbishop of Canterbury and "the gay issue"Mike Croghanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18099387827886541138noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5403232.post-1158461135123682562006-09-16T22:45:00.000-04:002006-09-16T22:45:00.000-04:00Hi E.P.,My position is basically "the progressive ...Hi E.P.,<BR/><BR/>My position is basically "the progressive one" (he says, as if this issue had two monolithic sides). That doesn't mean that I agree with all of the actions and positions of various parties on the "progressive side" as this has worked its way through the Anglican Communion. But fundamentally, I feel that the biblical case against gayness is far too weak to trump the radical welcome that is fundamental to the way of Jesus. Even if being gay is sinful (and again, I think the biblical case for this is flimsy), I would sooner exclude a very acquisitive person from a church leadership position than I would a gay person, based on the relative weight the Bible gives to sexuality issues vs. money/generosity issues. (But in truth, I wouldn't use anything like that as a litmus test, I hope. If I were deciding who got to be in church leadership positions, that is. Which I'm not.)<BR/><BR/>Oh, and the other issue: blessings/marriages. I think we need to decide who gets custody of the term "marriage" (church or state), separate the two very different concepts (secular/civil and religious), and, on the faith side, yes, I personally would support blessing unions of same-sex couples. But I wouldn't expect another Christian or another congregation to do the same.<BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/>MikeMike Croghanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18099387827886541138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5403232.post-1158459746373405082006-09-16T22:22:00.000-04:002006-09-16T22:22:00.000-04:00What is your position on this issue anyways? Just ...What is your position on this issue anyways? Just curious. Found your blog from my friend,Ray of COTA in Seattle. i live in Richmond, VA.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5403232.post-1158245884570259672006-09-14T10:58:00.000-04:002006-09-14T10:58:00.000-04:00I have to say, I had no idea. Has my head been in ...I have to say, I had no idea. Has my head been in the sand while this news has come out? Yikes. I have no words of encouragement other than to say that if we keep our eyes on what God is blessing and not worry about what pleases us (the right church, the right kind of pews), we should have no worries. God has been in and with the institutional church, sometimes laughing, sometimes weeping. And from what I can tell, God ain't exactly an either/or kinda God. Wide as the ocean. Big, roomy, expansive. The table is big enough for all sorts of expressions of the church. Thanks for pointing me to that article. I'm gonna start looking around for more news. Blessings.Rachelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01930235556546609531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5403232.post-1158245592509339612006-09-14T10:53:00.000-04:002006-09-14T10:53:00.000-04:00Let me hone your plea into something a little diff...Let me hone your plea into something a little different: "is bureaucracy so overbearing that it drowns out the voice of God?", or "are there questions irrlevant to the position of the church?"<BR/><BR/>On that second note: the litmus test is the consistency with which any member of the church would answer -- that is, if different people's answers to a particular question are significantly different, then that question isn't really relevant to their similarity of being members of the church. So rather than, "is being gay right or wrong?", consider, "did God make some people gay?" and see if responses are more consistent.Jayce from Rochesterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05766605787783546357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5403232.post-1157940552340242642006-09-10T22:09:00.000-04:002006-09-10T22:09:00.000-04:00Thanks, Steve. Real encouraging. ;-)Of course yo...Thanks, Steve. Real encouraging. ;-)<BR/><BR/>Of course you're right, but don't you think that this issue is intensified as stuctures get both a) larger and b) more hierarchical or otherwise theoretically "unified"?Mike Croghanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18099387827886541138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5403232.post-1157908602136170822006-09-10T13:16:00.000-04:002006-09-10T13:16:00.000-04:00this may not help, but even the lay leadership of ...this may not help, but even the lay leadership of a small house church is intrisincly political. to put a positive sping on it - anytime we call others to live radically into the Gospel message of Jesus Christ we preach politics. to view it negatively - church leadership (big or small) is a game of political double speak. we draw sophisticated, nuanced distinctions all the time as we deal with holding together a group of people who normally would have nothing to do with one another, but come together in worship God (when worship and God have different defintions for each member).<BR/><BR/><BR/>having now re-read my comment, i know this doesn't help. while this is an issue for the instutional church, it too is an issue for the "loose networks of small congregations and house churches." sorry to be the bearer of bad news.spankeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13255755818094635488noreply@blogger.com