Hi Stuart,
You still haven't answered my valid questions! A note about my use of
church - I used it in the embracive sense of all the people of God not
just clerics.
Grace and peace,
Graham
On Sun, 12 May 2002, Stuart d Kirkley wrote:
> Hi Graham,
> Yes, you are correct about Jesus' proclaiming what the two greatest
>commandments are, although I would suggest that this is a large part
>of working out one's own salvation. I have to take issue with your
>interpretation of Paul's instructions. The letter was addressed 'to
>all the saints, bishops and deacons' at Phillipi. This would
>indicate he is addressing all the members of the church as well as
>the clerics. If he were only addressin the church itself, he would
>probably have addressed the clerics only. To me, this indicates he
>is giving individual instruction to the church as a whole. But,
>putting that aside, I don't expect any church can work out the
>individuals salvation, it is up to the individual themselves to make
>the necessary repentance, reformation and redemption. The church
>cannot do it for them, it can only assist in the support and
>encouragement of the individual. As the individuals progress, so
>does the church. ANyway, that is almost an argument of semantics, !
and I
> don't think we are that far apart on our views in that respect.
> What I meant by the high school dance being public is that it is
>more of a public event than a church social or singles dance would
>be. That is most definitely something that would fall under the
>auspices of the church. The High School dance on the other hand is
>more in affiliation with the general public. I'm sure a lot of the
>dates taken to the prom were not from that school, or even Catholic
>for that matter. Also, this issue is still before the court, it has
>yet to be finally resolved. Obviously from my letter to the MP, I
>expressed concern that the seperation of church and state must be
>honoured. But I also acknowledge that civil liberties should not be
>repressed by the church, and if so, then the government, as the rule
>of the land, has the power to exercise any constitutionally
>guaranteed rights of the individual. That's democracy, the
>individuals rights are quite often regarded as being more important
>than the dictates of any institution. I respect that. Personally,!
I im
> agine that eventually gay marriages will become law for this
>reason. Again I do not agree with this at all. But in this instance
>I do maintain that the church should be held blameless if it chooses
>not to perform or bless same sex marriages. Of course this is a
>whole other can of worms, and I don't really want to set off any
>unwanted debate on this matter.
>
> Just quickly in closing , because I have to go. Remember also that
>Jesus charged " he that is without sin, let him cast the first
>stone'. THis is a profound thing to do, and is very liberating when
>followed. ANyway, more on this later. gotta go.
>
> Stuart
>
>
> --
>
> On Sun, 12 May 2002 15:56:51
> Graham Morbey wrote:
> >
> >
> >Hi again, Stuart,
> >
> >Just a couple of remarks on what you wrote me. First, it is not biblically
> >true to say that the Christian's first duty is to "work out your own
> >salvation..." According to Jesus the Christian's first duty is to love God
> >and neighbour (enemy, even!). See Mark 12:28-34 for example. Paul's
> >instruction to the Philippian church saves the text you quote from being
> >individualized and privatized. It is the local church working together on
> >its salvation that is in question here. The church is working out its
> >salvation for all to see, publically! Second, a Catholic School dance is
> >not a public event in the sense you seem to imply. Roman Catholics are
> >especially aware of the misuse of the dance - which other Christian groups
> >have simply banned - and the arena of the dance is just where its
> >understood Christian values are to be applied (all of life is religious).
> >Finally, there is no attack on a private life style in the case in
> >question. At street level it was just a request to be allowed to maintain
> >the church's communal rights. I am sorry that a relativistic individualism
> >won the day!
> >
> >I was pleased that you think the questions I posed are all valid and
> >important. I was somewhat disappointed that you didn't answer them,
> >because they seem to me to be "first" questions that help to clear a
> >lot of brush in this admittedly complex issue.
> >
> >Thank you for you irenic response. I hope you accept mine in the same
> >vein.
> >
> >Graham
> >
> >
> >On Sun, 12 May 2002, Stuart d Kirkley wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Graham,
> >> Your questions are all valid, and are important questions that need
> >>to be addressed. I am talking more about the Christian approach to
> >>addressing these problems, both within ourselves and within society
> >>at large. Please note that if I refer to 'you' or 'your' here it is
> >>not directed at you personally , but to the Christian individual at
> >>large.
> >>
> >> I said it already, the Christians first duty is to 'work out your
> >>own salvation'. Nobody, no institution, person, government or
> >>society has the moral authority to dictate how other people conduct
> >>their private lives, unless their conduct is criminal in behaviour.
> >>I ask you, what is more criminal, a couple of gay kids wanting to
> >>attend a dance together, or an institution and society that is
> >>screaming bloody murder and asking for censure of basic civil
> >>liberties. You may not agree with the homosexual lifestyle, I don't
> >>either, but I don't condemn those who practice it. That said, I
> >>disagree even more with anyone who feels they have the right to
> >>dictate what is right and isn't in another persons life. No one has
> >>any authority to do this. God is the only power and authority, and
> >>his wisdom will prevail no matter what we as humans try to do to
> >>correct things to how we think they should be. To attempt to assert
> >>your will over Gods will is a direct violation of the first comman!
> >dment
> >> . The only person you can correct is yourself, and the tendency to
> >>try and correct, influence, judge, or condemn anyone else is
> >>arrogant and perhaps even malicious.
> >>
> >> It is not the environment that needs to be changed, it is your
> >>perception of it. As I already pointed out, Christ was able to sit
> >>down with the publicans and sinners, not because he condoned their
> >>behaviour, but because he had compassion towards them and was hoping
> >>to heal their behaviour. To the Pharisees, who only had condemnation
> >>on their agenda, he said 'I will have mercy, and not sacrifice'. He
> >>prefaced that with the admonition " But go ye and learn what that
> >>meaneth' . If Christians have not begun to learn "what that
> >>meaneth", what the distinction between mercy and sacrifice is, then
> >>they still have a ways to go to 'work out their own salvation'.
> >>Condemnation of others, dictating morality, self will and self
> >>righteousness are not consistent with Christ's teachings.
> >>
> >> BTW, in this instance the judge only issued a temporary restraining
> >>order. The school board is contesting this, and intends to pursue it
> >>to the end. The gay student also intends to pursue his fundamental
> >>human rights to the end. This case will probably end up in the
> >>Supreme Court. Personally I think it's a lot of energy to expend
> >>just because some people aren't willing to acknowledge the simple
> >>rights and dignity of others, and to put their energy into promoting
> >>good will and inclusion, rather than division and strife. People may
> >>not agree with other peoples lifestyle, but as long as people feel
> >>they can dictate their sense of morality on someone else, there will
> >>continue to be strife and discord. God's will is best served by
> >>acknowledging and following his Son, and living the example of
> >>Christianity he gave to us, but nowhere did Jesus ever condemn
> >>anyone. Isn't that what parts of society and certain institutions
> >>are doing when they exclude people based on their sexual o!
> >rient
> >> ation or race or whatever.
> >>
> >> To be honest, I struggled with this issue a lot myself. I know that
> >>homosexuality is not consistent with Christianity, but what is
> >>consistent is not condemnation, but healing and reform. So I
> >>realised I had to reform my own thinking about this. I came to see
> >>that no amount of moralising is ever going to change the homosexual
> >>mindset, if anything it only hardens it against Christianity and
> >>moral reformation and redemption. Yet, I do not acquiesce to the
> >>tendencies of homosexual behaviour either. I can only do what is
> >>right in my own life and hope that it will shine as an example to
> >>others.
> >>
> >> I am going to paste a copy of a letter I wrote to certain
> >>politicians regarding this issue when it began to gather steam. I
> >>disagree with political correctness also, and as you will see, I
> >>strongly maintain that the church should be protected from
> >>government interference. You will also recognise that I do not take
> >>this matter lightly and that my position has evolved somewhat since
> >>writing this. Remember this was a high school dance, not a church
> >>dance, and although a Catholic school it is still a public arena,
> >>and in the public arena, I think the human right to freely associate
> >>with whom we choose as individuals should be honoured. Like
> >>Voltaire(?) said: I may disagree with what you believe, but I will
> >>defend to the death your right to believe it.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Hon. Allan Rock
> >> Minister of Industry
> >> Government of Canada
> >> MP, Etobicoke Centre
> >>
> >> Mr. Rock,
> >> I would like to comment on your address to the Egale
> >>Gala last Thursday night. I am not a constituent in your riding,
> >>neither am I Catholic, but I am a member of a church located in your
> >>riding. My concern is not about the rightness or wrongness of
> >>homosexual activity. That is strictly between the individual and
> >>God. I am quite concerned about certain implications arising from
> >>the Marc Hall dance partner case. My concern is the crucial
> >>importance of maintaining the separation of church and state. I do
> >>hope you fully appreciate the importance of maintaining this
> >>principle as one of the pillars of democracy. Although Mr. Hall
> >>believes he should have the right to do as he pleases regarding his
> >>sexual orientation, and this may be true in a wholly secular arena,
> >>it becomes a different situation when his decision impinges upon
> >>the jurisdiction of the church to uphold it's position regarding
> >>sexual morality. The government (if not the public) must appreciate
> >>the Chri!
> >stian
> >> Church's position regarding this issue. The church is an
> >>institution, which must uphold the Christian standards of sexual
> >>morality. If it does not, it has failed in its mission. How it
> >>achieves this is up to each individual church.
> >> Certainly if a church blatantly violated civil liberties it should
> >>be subject to the laws of the land. But it would be a very dangerous
> >>precedent should a government begin to dictate how the church treats
> >>certain issues.
> >> Although many churches more than welcome having persons of the
> >>gay community as part of their congregation, it is another matter
> >>whether or not those same persons would be readily admitted into the
> >>church membership. This scenario is not restricted to this group but
> >>certainly it should be the churches prerogative to determine who
> >>becomes a church member. My concern is that if the government
> >>capitulates to public opinion and political lobbying (which the
> >>Egale gala certainly evinced), and in the event that Mr. Halls
> >>court case is won, then what happens when individuals or groups cry
> >>foul when they are refused church membership on the basis of their
> >>sexual orientation? Indeed, if same sex marriage should become law,
> >>what is to prevent claims of discrimination against a church if it
> >>refuses to conduct a same sex marriage? These individuals and lobby
> >>groups claim the church is guilty of discrimination. This is a
> >>malicious charge and grows out of a misapprehension of the m!
> >issio
> >> n and purpose of Christianity. It is not only the churches
> >>prerogative; it is its duty to maintain the sacred institution of
> >>marriage and sexual morality for these are the very cornerstones of
> >>civilization. I fear that if same sex marriages are allowed, that
> >>provisions must be made to protect the church from harassment or
> >>criminal and civil proceedings when they refuse to conduct same sex
> >>marriages.
> >> The church is certainly not against human rights or equality, but
> >>the church must maintain a higher platform of spiritual rights and
> >>mankind's God given dominion over immorality. How it is decided what
> >>is immoral or not is, again, between the individual and God, but the
> >>church must uphold what it maintains to be the Christian standard of
> >>morality. The separation of church and state must be maintained to
> >>ensure that both these institutions are allowed to govern their
> >>separate spheres without undue influence or coercion.
> >>
> >> Sincerely,
> >> Stuart Kirkley
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> --
> >>
> >> On Sun, 12 May 2002 10:09:04
> >> Graham Morbey wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Hi Stuart,
> >> >
> >> >Do you think that banning an exhibition of a homosexual life
>style in this
> >> >case was an attack on the homosexual life style? Do you think that
> >> >personal ethics nullifies social ethics? Does a social institution with
> >> >particular life style values have to give them up when called upon to do
> >> >so by a particular personal life style that has different
>values? Where's
> >> >the victory here? It seems to me that postmodern political
>correctness in
> >> >our time of mutifaith pluralism ought to defend both the limits of
> >> >personal freedom and limits of communal freedom. How to you understand
> >> >personal rights and communal rights in times of conflict? Where was the
> >> >right to religious freedom in all of this?
> >> >
> >> >Regards,
> >> >
> >> >Graham
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >On Sat, 11 May 2002, Stuart d Kirkley wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Hi John,
> >> >> I am in total agreement with you, although I am not familiar with
> >> >> Leonardo Boff's works. Religion is meant to liberate, not to
> >> >> subjugate. The Bible is meant to illumine our individual paths, not
> >> >> to be bashed over other people's heads. Church is meant to create a
> >> >> community of faith, love, understanding and outreach, not become a
> >> >> pulpit for a narrow political agenda.
> >> >>
> >> >> I liked your quote from Leonardo Boff. You may also enjoy this
> >> >> similar quote from Mary Baker Eddy:
> >> >> "The test of all prayer lies in the answer to these questions: Do we
> >> >> love our neighbor better because of this asking? Do we pursue the old
> >> >> selfishness, satisfied that we have prayed for something better,
> >> >> though we give no evidence of the sincerity of our requests by living
> >> >> consistently with our prayer? If selfishness has given place to
> >> >> kindness, we shall regard our neighbor unselfishly, and bless them
> >> >> that curse us; but we shall never meet this great duty simply by
> >> >> asking that it may be done. There is a cross to be taken up before we
> >> >> can enjoy the fruition of our hope and faith." (Science and Health p.
> >> >> 9)
> >> >>
> >> >> In regard to your clipping from the Associated Press, you may find
> >> >> the following recent news from my neck of the woods (Toronto)
> >> >> encouraging as well. A month or two ago a gay high school student
> >> >> from a Catholic (private religious) School took his school board to
> >> >> court because they refused him to bring his boyfriend to the High
> >> >> School Prom. The Prom was just yesterday, Friday. The judge issued a
> >> >> tempiorary restraining order yesterday against the board which
> >> >> effectively allowed this person to bring his boyfriend to the dance.
> >> >> I think this was a great victory for human rights. Although I don't
> >> >> agree with the homosexual lifestyle, I don't think anyone has the
> >> >> right to dictate what other people do with their private lives,
> >> >> unless it is something criminal. There is nothing criminal with being
> >> >> gay. As Rousseau or Voltaire ? said, I disagree with your viewpoint,
> >> >> but I will defend to the death your right to exercise it.
> >> >> (paraphrased)
> >> >>
> >> >> To be a liberal Christian is to understand and practice what Paul
> >> >> meant when he said, 'Work out your own salvation with fear and
> >> >> trembling' . This has been modified over time to become the present
> >> >> saying 'Live, and let live'. I think too many self proclaimed
> >> >> 'Christians' feel they have the moral authority to dictate how other
> >> >> people should act. Christ said, when confronted by the pharisees as
> >> >> he dined with the publicans and sinners, 'They that be whole need not
> >> >> a physician, but they that are sick. But go ye and learn what that
> >> >> meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to
> >> >> call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.' (Matt (12,13).
> >> >> And of course, your reference to Micah 6:8 is a wonderful instruction.
> >> >>
> >> >> I would say to those Christians who feel besieged and threatened by
> >> >> 'liberal' ideology, to let go of any resentment, animosity or ill
> >> >> will and 'rather, let it be healed'. God cares for all His creation
> >> >> and you can trust God to fully care for each of His individual
> >> >> children. He will do it and it is not your responsibility or right to
> >> >> impose your conception of God's will on other people. Look after your
> >> >> own house, and see that it is in order, and don't be so quick to
> >> >> judge, for 'he that judgeth, himself also will be judged'. In other
> >> >> words, Let God be God, He is in charge and He will bring all His
> >> >> children back into the fold through His son, Christ Jesus. Christ is
> >> >> the shepherd, not you. Let him lead his flock, and he will seek out
> >> >> all that are lost and bring them back into the fold in due time. Our
> >> >> individual duty as Christians and followers of Christ, is to 'work
> >> >> out our own salvation', to be a light and example unto those who we
> >> >> would want to save also, by saving ourselves!
> >> >> .
> >> >> All you are doing by moralising and condemning others is hindering
> >> >> Christs' true mission (and your own as his disciple) to 'have mercy,
> >> >> and not sacrifice', because you are seeking sacrifice, not mercy.
> >> >>
> >> >> OK, that's my piece for now.
> >> >> God Bless,
> >> >> Stuart Kirkley
> >> >> --
> >> >>
> >> >> On Fri, 10 May 2002 15:34:02
> >> >> John W Burgeson wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I heard Rush Limbaugh the other day tell his audience what
>a "liberal"
> >> >> >was.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I did not recognize myself, or anyone I know, in his rantings.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >What do YOU think a liberal thinks? Narrow it down -- a liberal
> >> >> >Christian.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I'll give you a start. Micah 6:8 is pretty important.
>Madison's "Memorial
> >> >> >and Remonstrance" is pretty important. The Bill of Rights,
>particularly
> >> >> >Amendment #1.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >In no particular order:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Free speech
> >> >> >Religion free from government interference, either positive
>or negative.
> >> >> >Against any law that inserts a grim faced man in a blue
>suit with a large
> >> >> >gun into a doctor's office. In other words, pro-choice -- but NOT
> >> >> >pro-abortion.
> >> >> >Anti-racist in a wide meaning of that term. See all humanity as equal
> >> >> >before God.
> >> >> > People of color have equal standing
> >> >> > Women have equal standing
> >> >> > People with different sexual preferences have
>equal standing
> >> >> >See diversity as a "good thing."
> >> >> >Honor those of a different religious persuasion.
> >> >> >Honor those with no religious persuasion.
> >> >> >See Christianity as primarily a confessional, not a prescriptive
> >> >> >religion.
> >> >> >Subscribe, to a more or less extent, to Leonardo Boff's observation:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >One of Boff's most powerful books is Way of the Cross --
>Way of Justice
> >> >> >(Orbis, 1980) Written in blank verse, it is a series of
>meditations on
> >> >> >the stations of the cross, a traditional exercise of individualistic
> >> >> >Catholic piety that Boff transforms into a communal
>exercise as well. He
> >> >> >effects this transformation by offering meditations on each of the
> >> >> >"stations" of Jesus' original journey along the Via Dolorosa, all of
> >> >> >which are followed by second meditations reflecting on the
>meaning of the
> >> >> >station for Jesus followers in today's world. The practice
>exemplifies
> >> >> >Boff's conviction that theology must have "two eyes," one
>looking to the
> >> >> >past "where salvation broke in" and the other looking
>toward the present
> >> >> >"where salvation becomes a reality here and now." The "way
>of the cross"
> >> >> >focuses on the historical Jesus, but the "way of justice"
>focuses "on the
> >> >> >Christ of faith who continues his passion today in his brothers and
> >> >> >sisters who are being condemned, tortured and killed for the cause of
> >> >> >justice" (p. viii) The parallels between what Jesus suffered then and
> >> >> >what his followers suffer today are acute and heartrending.
>The book has
> >> >> >intense power, and will surely become one of the spiritual
>classics of
> >> >> >our time. Boff writes:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"The eternal destiny of human beings will be measured by
>how much or how
> >> >> >little solidarity we have displayed with the hungry, the thirsty, the
> >> >> >naked and the oppressed. In the end, we will be judged in
>terms of love."
> >> >> >
> >> >> >This liberal has that motto taped to his PC monitor.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Finally, the following good news came to me today from a
>fellow liberal:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Dallas City Council Approves Anti-Discrimination Ordinance
> >> >> >> The Associated Press, May 8, 2002
> >> >> >> DALLAS - The Dallas City Council on Wednesday adopted
>an ordinance
> >> >> >> that prohibits discrimination against gays and lesbians in
> >>employment,
> >> >> >> housing and in public places such as hotels and restaurants.
> >> >> >> The council voted 13-2 for the measure, which was pledged on the
> >> >> >> campaign trail by new Mayor Laura Miller. Violation of
>the ordinance
> >> >> >> will result in fines up to $500.
> >> >> >> "Let us walk out of the shadow of intolerance and bigotry
> >>and into the
> >> >> >> sunshine of human rights," Councilman John Loza said.
> >> >> >> The two councilmen who opposed the ordinance, Alan
>Walne and Mitchell
> >> >> >> Rasansky, said it would be too expensive for the city to
> >>enforce in an
> >> >> >> already tight budget year. Resansky also said the measure
> >>could be too
> >> >> >> expensive for small businesses.
> >> >> >> The ordinance exempts employers with less than 15 workers, and
> >> >> >> proponents said it would cost only $15,000 in money that's
> >>not already
> >> >> >> budgeted.
> >> >> >> American Airlines executive Donald J. Carty spoke in favor of the
> >> >> >> ordinance and said the Fort Worth-based carrier has
>adopted a similar
> >> >> >> policy for its workers.
> >> >> >> "The true strength of our city lies in our diversity," he said.
> >> >> >> The Rev. Flip Benham, director of the Dallas-based
> >>anti-abortion group
> >> >> >> Operation Save America, spoke against the measure.
> >> >> >> "It's a travesty that breaks my heart," he said. "The
>city hall has
> >> >> >> declared itself as God. It's a direct attack on the word of God."
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >This person sees no attack on the word of God. Except,
>perhaps, by Flip
> >> >> >Benham.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Your mileage may differ.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >John Burgeson (Burgy)
> >> >> >
> >> >> >http://www.burgy.50megs.com
> >> >> > (science/theology, quantum mechanics, baseball, ethics,
> >> >> > humor, cars, philosophy and much more)
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
>>******************************************************************************
> >> >Graham E. Morbey, Chaplain || Wilfrid Laurier University
> >> >tel. 519-884-1970 ext.2739 || Waterloo, Ontario,
>Canada N2L 3C5
> >> >fax 519-885-4865 || gmorbey@wlu.ca
> >>
>>******************************************************************************
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >******************************************************************************
> >Graham E. Morbey, Chaplain || Wilfrid Laurier University
> >tel. 519-884-1970 ext.2739 || Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3C5
> >fax 519-885-4865 || gmorbey@wlu.ca
> >******************************************************************************
> >
>
>
******************************************************************************
Graham E. Morbey, Chaplain || Wilfrid Laurier University
tel. 519-884-1970 ext.2739 || Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3C5
fax 519-885-4865 || gmorbey@wlu.ca
******************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 13 2002 - 10:18:58 EDT