Letting God outa' the Box

Tuesday, April 29, 2003

 
Fear...the antithesis of Love?

Ok Tripp, you asked for it...Pandora's box is opening...

When I stopped and looked back on my childhood, I realized I was raised under a cloud of fear. 'If you do not behave, God will punish you.' ' Just wait until your Father gets home and finds out what you have done...boy, will you get a whipping.' 'If you don't do your homework, not only will the teacher punish and embarass you, you will never get into college and you will have a horrible life.' Any of these sound familiar? Heard, said or thought any thing like this?

Some years ago, I realized I was scared of my Dad and I sought to resolve that. When I finally reconciled with my Dad, a door opened for me to begin reconciling with my Father in Heaven. Fear of rejection or punishment had kept my from really allowing my Dad to love me and me to love him also. I could not really trust that he loved me, when he always seemed to be against me. I do not want to misrepresent him or my image of him, he did take on the 'bad cop' role out of love and concern...he wanted the best for me and wanted to protect me. And, sometimes it may be applicable to "scare" your children from doing things or making choices that could be irrevocably damaging. But, fear seems to breed mistrust and even rebellion. I wonder can I (can humans) truly love something or someone I (we) fear? It seem extremely difficult to love someone I do not trust will not harm me.

Webster's defines fear as 'a feeling of agitation and anxiety caused by the presence or imminence of danger' as well as 'extreme reverence or awe, as toward a supreme power'. I am not sure how these two relate. Even Webster's seems to make a connection between 'God' and 'a feeling of agitation and anxiety caused by presence or imminence of danger'. Someone please help me find how love fits in such relationship. Love seems to be more associated with feelings of acceptance and security. I cannot see how I can love something/one that elicits feeling of danger or harm. Sounds like one of those X-treme Sports.

I may be wrong; we may need to 'fear' God. However, I am over joyed by programs such as the Catechesis of the Good Shepherd that seek to introduce God to children through love, not fear. In a world where lots of bad stuff happens, I think we need to know first and foremost that God loves us; that our creation on this earth is not punishment. If we begin with understanding God's love for us, we can grow in our relationship and seek to please God through keeping God's Words (aka Commandments). If we are running in fear and seemed to get punished for things we are not sure about...why keep trying?

Beating a puppy for peeing on the floor only confuses a puppy...it does not know where to pee...it just knows it has to pee. A positive reward of love (while still emotional extortion) when the puppy pees in the grass builds upon the puppy's natural desire to please and be loved. Does fear of punishment stop humans from committing crimes? In a world of fear why fear hell if you fell as if you are already there? What is hell?...the ultimate separation from God and from all that is good? Well, if fear of God separates us from God...sounds like it can feel like hell. So if I am living in separation that feels like hell, what would I want...to know the way out!!! I may not even be concerned, immediately, with what got me there...I just want out. I believe that understanding God loves us is the key to unlock the door to hell. Will it alone get us out? Probably not but it can be the first step on the journey out.

Love is a gift from God which is very precious. It can make you feel 'higher' than any drug...and can be as addictive. The taste of God's love can lead us to growing in our relationship with God and others. For if God loves me, then hey I am loveable...I begin to learn what love is...I begin to even love myself. In learning to love myself, I can begin to actually reach out and extent that love outside myself to others. But, knowing that God loves me despite all that I know I am, despite the fact that I am always doing things wrong, living in fear of punishment...knowing that God loves me anyway is a great gift. Do I really need to fear God or just understand the awesome mystery of God, who created all things and could end all things if God so felt? Was 'awe' and/or 'respect' the meaning of the word in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek? Is our use of 'fear' an inappropriate translation? Can I stand in love and awe of God as I watch a sunset...or do I need to fear that it may not rise for me tomorrow? Does fear block the growth of love? Is the feeling that we are in danger prevent us from reaching out to God and others?

"Are ya'll saved...yer know recieved Jesus Christ as your personal Savior"...Good Southern Evangelism. So is being saved the feeling you get at the altar call...isn't that feeling God's love? Can salvation also be a process...a journey, begining with accepting God's love through Jesus Christ...allowing that love to grow and be sustained by the Holy Spirit until such time a God's calls you from your earthly existance? Help, Tripp and Jeff,...more baptist than anglo? Is Baptism an outward and visible symbol/sign of the forgiveness and love between God and humans? Is Eucharist the continuing commitment and reaffirmation of our loving relationship with God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit? Will I past General Ordination Exams or will I continue to preach from a drive-thru window of a deli? :)

"Fear Not, I bring you tidings of great Joy"

I may see things too all or nothing. I welcome any comments...especially any philosophy that may show me how Fear and Love are co-relational and can actually work together for a positive relationship with God.
Fr. Bill 10:15 AM

|

Saturday, April 26, 2003

 
Univeralist? Heretic? or "Correct"?

I have been reading some interesting debates of my co-bloggers listed on the left side of this page: a debat over the initial stance of protestant and orthodox Christians and its affects on each's view point to of theological matters (Clifton's Blog) as well as a discussion over the openess of church (Tripp's Blog).

After reading these debates, I began reading Robert Farrar Capon's The Romance of the Word: One Man's Love Affair with Theology. For good or bad, I found I share Capon's view points. Yet, Capon self admits his views are not shared by many in the Church and he very much comes from an interesting blend of traditional and protestant.
"For me, theology is not the explication of straight-line propositions about God but a word game in which analogies and images are tossed at a Mystery that lies beyond the reach of any ordinary human speech. Above all, the Mystery itself is not a transaction -- not an insertion into the world of a divine fix -- but rather a universal, constitutive feature of creation that has been operative from the start" (33-34).

He goes on to say how sacraments do not bring Christ into the world, but REVEAL Christ, who is already here, to us. Capon want to do away with the "transaction" view in tradition: "If all we have to tell the world is that it can come home only if is goes through some series of performances that will enable it to latch on to God's acceptance of it, we might as well shut up" (26). " The church is not catholic (universal) because it has everybody inside itself: it never has had them and it never will. The church is catholic because it's the sacrament of a catholic Jesus -- of a Redeemer who already has everybody inside himself and who asks us only to trust him" (27).

I do not know what position or point of view this maybe considered (as Clifton discussed in his Blog). Believing such, I may easily find myself labeled a 'universalist' because I believe Christ reveals salvation for all, yet we humans have the choice to see and accept or ignore and deny. I also wonder how I, as a future priest, can keep the doors open to allow anyone who has not seen to take a look, while journeying with those who have seen and seek greater acceptance.

A final word from Capon: "Nobody isn't saved: Jesus takes away the sins of the world not just the cooperative" (27).


Fr. Bill 11:08 AM

|

Thursday, April 24, 2003

 
Ever get the BLUES?

While listening to a little "Widespread", I began to contemplate the Post-Holiday Blues. Easter left me with a little case of the blues. Sebastian Moore hints that our blues come from our separation from God. It would make sense that Christmas and Easter, the two biggest Christian Holidays may leave some of us a little wanting. With both it seems we rush around either excitedly preparing for the birth or the resurrection of Christ. When the holiday is over, I often wonder where they went. The special time to commune with Christ seems too short. Cultural demands and my human expectations seems to cloud the whole experience. Afterwards I feel a little sad...and not a sad I can really grasp hold of or name.

While reading Cavalletti's The Religious Potential of the Child, I can across her theory on need for helping a child under 6 to find "a universal key that allows [the child] to details [of reality] in the right way" (152). She is refering to the Catechesis of the Good Shepherd, which seeks to bring out the knowledge of God that is inate within each child; that is, rather than teaching them what/who God is, we allow children to listen to scripture and develop their own images. She goes on to state that if the child does not have a 'yardstick' within themselves to measure what is 'good' or 'bad', issues can develop.

"The yardstick must already be prepared by the time he needs it. The adult's hurried intervention in the moment when a moral crisis is already in action is undoubtedly detramental. The older child will either rebel against an inopportune intrusion, or he will become accustomed to using someone else's yardstick; then morality will not be the child's own listening to the voice of the Spirit, but rather obedience to an external law. Thus the older child--and often the adult as well--will stay on a level of moral immaturity. (152)"

I wonder if the same can be said from spiritual development...can we be satisfied with adopting some external rule of spirituality or doe we need to develop a spiritual yardstick of our own. To bring this thought back around to Easter, what is the expected spiritual and emotional (not to even go to the cultural expectations) reactions to Easter. Once a Christian has had a "mountain top" Easter experience, can we really expect to have the same emotional high each Easter? For that matter, each Sunday is a little Easter of its own.

Part of my wrestling with all this is my formation to the Priesthood. In seminary, we [seminarians] seem to be on the strange quest to the exact and correct answer. Some days it does feel like Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail(check out Tripp's blog!) Yet is there such a thing as that when you are dealing with God, who is by definition beyond our comprehension. Is my call to the Priesthood to find out all the right answers and run out and share them? No! To assume a priest has all the exact and correct answers concerning God is balberdash...it is as Cavaletti suggests a sign of immaturity of our own personal relationship with God. The call to the priesthood seems to be a call to be a full-time fellow traveler and journeyman on the path with each person seeking and fostering of each person's personal relationship with God.
I wonder if the post holiday blues comes from not meeting my expectations or cultural expectation. What cha think? Ever get the Blues?
Fr. Bill 2:42 PM

|

Saturday, April 19, 2003

 
Holy Saturday

The Conclusion to Enzler's everyone's way of the cross

Christ speaks:I told you at the start, my other self,
my life was not complete
until I crowned it by my death.
Your "way" is not complete
unless you crown it by your life.

Accept each moment as it comes to you,
with faith and trust
that all that happens has my mark on it.
A simple fiat, this is all it take;
a breathing in your heart,
"I will it, Lord."

So seek me not in far-off places.
I am close at hand.
Your workbench, office, kitchen
these are altars
where you offer love.
And I am with you there.

Go now! Take up your cross
and with your life
complete your way.

The words from a classic rock song [All of My Love by Led Zepplin, 'In through the out door' album] came to mind when I first read this: "Is this the end or just beginning?" 'Is it only by peering in the darkness of an empty tomb that we are able to see the light? Is this the end or just beginning?' I found these words on a post-it in my copy of Enzler's book...thoughts from a time ago when I first returned to the church.

It is in the darkness of Christ's death that I begin to see the light of hope. The resurrection is that light. The light that shows through the darkness of death to reveal that there is more. God does not abandon us in death. Jesus is the Good Sheperd who will stay with us during the darkness and lead us to the light of the new day. It is only in the darkness, the death, the ending of old things, old habits, old thoughts, old sins that we let go of this old stuff, so that we can be changed and greet the new day as a new person. Easter is the true New Year of the Christian. Peering into the darkened tomb on that morning so long ago, Mary Magdalene knew her life had changed. All she had known was washed away when she met Jesus and realized He had overcome death.

On this Easter, can we let ourselves die? Can we forgive ourselves and all the muck of our past lives? Can we be born anew, as a new person with a new view on life...life as a gift? Can we accept the love...the love that God has for us? Can we love ourselves like God loves us? Can we share that love, God's love, with the world? Can we take up that cross of actually accepting the weight of God love for us?
Fr. Bill 8:32 AM

|

Friday, April 11, 2003

 
I am struck by a discussion going on Tripp's Anglo-Baptist Navel Gazers Blog on Christ in the "ordinary."

I am reminded of the 5th Station in Clarence Enzler's everyone's way of the cross:

5.
Simon Helps Jesus


Christ speaks:

My strength is gone;
I can no longer bear the cross alone.
And so the legionaires
make Simon give me aid.
This Simon is like you, my other self.
Give me your strength.
Each time you lift some burden from another's back,
you lift as with your very hand
the cross' awful weight
that crushes me.


I reply:
[our reply]

Lord, make me realize
that every time I wipe a dish,
pick up an object off the floor,
assist a child in some small task,
or give another preference
in traffic or the store;
each time I feed the hungry,
clothe the naked,
teach the ignorant,
or lend my hand in any way --
it matter not to whom --
my name is Simon.
And the kindness I extend to them
I really give to you.



An incarnate view of Christ seems to call Christians to see Christ in the world, in all people, maybe even in all creatures (especially dogs), and in the ordinary everyday journey of life. Is this a call to open our eyes and our hearts so that we may see?


Fr. Bill 9:13 AM

|

Sunday, April 06, 2003

 
Another retreat at Mundelein Seminary: thought I would share an exerpt from my weekend journal:

I am deeply concerned with uses of ‘shame, blame and fear’ in our culture and within religion. I feel I have experienced pervasive uses of shame, blame and fear in the Christian community. I found it difficult to see an image of God as love in an environment of shame, blame and fear. I remember feeling terrorized within the Bible Belt culture, when I was not a church-goer. Do others share similar experiences or am I alone in this?

In the folds of feeling called to the Priesthood, am I to merely accept such negative motivations as the operating procedures? If I do not, what punishment will be fall me because I rebel against any traditions that continue to operate upon the motivations of shame, blame and fear?

Last night’s Rabbi speaker portrayed a wonderful stance of openness, understanding each person’s image of God is unique to that person…he truly exhibited the Episcopal Baptismal covenant of ‘respecting all persons’. He spoke of a reluctance of building a foundation on theological principles. He honored the presence of the Lord in God’s creation, understanding that God’s presence is beyond our human comprehension. He spoke of sacred time as time to honor God’s presence in the world that we are able to recognize. The Sabbath is a sacred time that is set aside to seek to recognize and honor God’s presence and God’s gift of creation.

As I more see life and creation as a gift of love from God, the uses of shame blame and fear associations with God become more incompatible with my image of God as love. I feel more pain and hurt that these images are associated with God whom I have grown to view as love, who loves us all.
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life” (John 3:16). This is not a threat or meant to guilt me into loving God back. It is an exposition telling of God’s love for us.
Is there any room for shame, blame, fear and guilt in worship (dare I say, loving) God? Do shame, blame, fear and guilt contaminate the gift of love that God has and continues to give? Can church be a gathering of love and worship of God, or do we are we still going to view church as an obligation? Can worship feel good? Can worship and church be a sanctuary, sacred space, which has no contamination of love by fear, hate, shame, blame, and guilt?


Fr. Bill 4:13 PM

|

Friday, April 04, 2003

 
From The Magnificat

He has shown the strength of his arm,
he has scattered the proud in their conceit.

This verse rattled around in my head this morning. Reading the story of Babel is Genesis 11:1-9, left me still mystified.
The story seems to carry a wisdom than I am not grasping. Watching last night's episode of Frontline on PBS, "Blair's War" added to my bewilderment. As the narrator described Blair's 'failure' in acting as a bridge between the US and the UN, I wondered what weight truly pressed down on Blair's heart. The US was portaited as the superpower who seeks to police the world with its belief of moral superiority. Has the US built the 'City on the Hill' and constructed a tower of moral superiority? Is having such thoughts anti-American? Has America's cultural Christianity become so intertwined that Americanism and Christianity have become blurred, not only in the eyes of Americans but others in the world?

On a gray Chicago day, I feel the sadness in a search for surety...I feel as a stranger in a strange land. One foot in academia, one foot in spirituality. Academia seems to move for an almost Gnositic search for wisdom, and a sense of security in knowledge. While spirituality recognizes the mystery and the unattainability of certainty. Exercises of paper writing are attempts to show the learning that is taken place over a term, not to establish certaintly. I find it interesting that ever major theologians have always been accompanied by dissenters (even though some were killed before their words could be written). I find a great sadness in certainty because it seems to squeeze love, respect and humility. Certainty seems to open the door for pride to enter. So, is it good news that 'the proud are scattered in their conceit?

I have found great comfort in Sofia Cavalletti's "The Religious Potential of the Child". The Good Shepherd program she refers to lives out the concepts of love, respect and humility. Seeking to bring out the knowledge of God that is within each child rather than reconstructing a foreign image of God within the child. Words are respected for the symbols that they are, rather than confined to the certainty established by the guidelines of Webster's Dictionary. Oh, how isolating and hurts it feels to be told your thoughts are wrong. How easily the human mind moves to expand such judgment upon the self, internalizing the judgment of wrongness not just to the answer but to one's whole being.

The quandary of the Priesthood is how to work with negative images of God while respecting the dignity of the developer. For me, I had an image of a judgmental God. That image easily led to quick and harsh judgment upon myself and others...I tended to be easier on others because I have an idea of my own heart, and very little knowledge of another's heart. Through study, prayer, and community of others, I began to see an image of God as forgiveness and even a ray of love. I remember the great sadness of judging myself when I see flashes of the judgmental image of God in myself and in others. I want to put on my fix-it hat, pull out the tools and begin working on changing that image. Such a task is treacherous, maybe even foolish. My Dad thought so. He wonder why anyone would want to do such a foolish thing as become a priest and seek to deal with the ugliness of humanity. My only response, because I feel called to it, it almost seems like I have no choice when I discern God's work in my life. I have been fed, and hear the word that the Lord spoke to Peter "Feed my sheep". Yikes...it is touch being a sheep and trying to feed others...it is tough when other sheep see me as a wolf or a shepherd. But, there is only one Good Shepherd, Jesus, who loves us dispite (and because of) all the ugliness we are. (enough rambling for today)

Fr. Bill 9:39 AM

|

Thursday, April 03, 2003

 
Responce to some paper comments:
When Balmer says that groups like Promise Keepers reasserts patriarchalism within their ideology, he points more of the movement of the ideology as being "backward" to 19th century-style as a model. He applies the name "cult of domesticity" to the idea of traditional family roles. Whether intentioned or not, such a movement is an attempt to reestablish control over family life which is seen as chaotic. While the movement of the ideology may be toward equality, Balmer asserts that once traditional male imagery is evoked, the movement easily continues toward traditional and often very patriarchal role assertions to males and females. What happens is a very romanticised view of tradition family values, rather than a present look at the issues facing families.

"Has the church as the body of Christ shown itself to be open and welcoming of loving relationships or have the patriarchal influences of the church motivated couples in equilateral relationships to move away from the Christian body?" Restated: Has the public association of the movement backward to traditional family values (applied to marriage) with Christianity, caused Christianity to be seen from an unchurch point of view as unwelcoming if they do not share the a romantic view of traditional family values. Whether actually preached from the pulpit, or just insinuated at coffee hour by laity, the Christian association with traditional family values alienates individuals who are not either sold on it or do not experience it. Individuals such as single adults, divorced adults, teens and children from divorced or non-traditional family backgrounds, have difficulty associating with traditional family values; if the public marketing and public persception of the Christian Church is linked with traditional family values, such people will have difficulty associating with the Christian Church.
Relationships based on equality occur within and outside the Church. Yet, the association of traditional family values with the Church implies a more open position to patriarchal relationships because patriachs are easily associated with tradition. Years of public association with male only clergy and the use of "man and wife" in marriage do not convey a message of equality to the public; the Church, the Body of Christ, still has a male body image associated with it. For couples who seek support for their equal stance in relationship, the Christian Church as well as Christian marriage may not be seen as open to equal relationships.

Summation: tradition family values are associated with traditional patriarchal stance. Christianity is a history of a traditional patriarchal stance and is often associated with traditional family values. For couple who view an equilateral relationship as more healthy (and even as a Divine Command) the Christian as well as the marriage associations with traditional, and oft patriarchal, family values is unwelcoming of their stance and Not a place to seek support. With the increasing numbers of people who did not learn 'Jesus Love Me' in a Sunday School, this public image association is hard for them to overcome.

"Is it all or nothing?" I don't think so. Openness seems to be applicable term. Allowing God to be judge not us; letting go of dualism, especially in the ideology of exactitude of good or evil, righteousness or sin. Anthony deMello has an interesting take off on the 1970's best seller I'm OK, You're OK; in his book Awareness(p.40) he states he should write a book titled I'm an Ass, You're an Ass because we are all equal as sinners and all able to recieve God's love and forgiveness. Christ brought Good News to the sinner!
(David, thanks for the comments and questions!)
Fr. Bill 8:33 AM

|

Wednesday, April 02, 2003

 
Thinking about Frank's comment on 'legalism', I have decided to post my Ethics paper. For me Christ perfects the law, writing the law on our hearts. Obeying the law becomes an act of love, not simply following the rules. I do not treat my fiancee with respect because I have to, I do it because I want to do so. Sure it can work both ways, grace and love can be found in following the rules and grow into love. But, is it love for ourselves, others and God or just love of the rules? Or, do we follow the rules under fear of the consequences? The opportunity for all exists. Well, here's the paper, let me know your thoughts ; some html editing may still be needed.

Living together: Who decides?

The ethical question of unmarried couples living together has become an issue in my life. Based on a Divine Command theory of ethical methodology, many Christians say that an unmarried couple living together is wrong and sinful. This use of Divine Command theory is limited. The assumption that the relationship excludes God and God’s will is based solely on the absence of the marital covenant under the authority of the institution of either church or state. If Christians choose to judge the righteousness or ethical correctness of relationship, we need to focus on discerning God’s presence in the relation rather than basing our ethics on assumptions.

In today’s American culture, more people decide to live together outside the bonds of marriage. From some Christian religious perspectives, such a decision is viewed to be a sin, immoral and unethical. In order to look at this further, I am working under the assumption that the two individuals who choose to live together also do so out of feelings of love for each other. The couple is also acting under the belief and commitment that their relationship will have a future, such as marriage if it is available to them. A Christian viewpoint that judges all relationships outside the bonds of marriage to be unethical, and sinful, is too limited, too narrow and is itself unethical, and sinful. Such a judgment, based on the Divine Command Theory of ethical methodology assumes to know God’s will for every situation. God becomes restricted to dogmatic rules based on human assumptions. Such a move divides the body of Christ, the church, giving power to certain parts and leaving other parts powerless. Divine Command Theory can be more effective when judgment remains with God and people focus more guidelines or axioms for discernment within a community of believers than absolute general rules designed to cover all situations.

In his book Ethics After Easter, Stephen Holmgren states that “Christian ethics is a primary aspect of our response to God’s great saving actions on our behalf” (5). Holmgren is saying that Christians should act in a response of love mirroring God’s gift of love through salvation. In Love Does No Harm: Sexual Ethics for the Rest of Us, Marie Fortune blends virtue ethics and divine command theory ethics. She assumes that we enter into intimate relationships for the purpose of good. She views discernment as a process of understanding God’s divine command for how we should live in our relationships. Both Holmgren and Fortune focus on virtue ethics, viewing the ends of the action or decision, as the place to evaluate whether we are acting appropriately, in accordance with God’s will. Both seek to place Christian’s ethical decisions within the body of Christ as a whole rather than limiting discernment to only certain parts.

Following Holmgren’s and Fortune’s lead, we can look at the cohabitation of two individuals based on discerning God’s will in the situation. Holmgrem looks at the baptismal covenant in the Book of Common Prayer as a general authority of God’s will for us. Fortune looks to scripture for guidance to help us discern God’s will for love in our lives, primarily Romans 13: 8-10:

Owe no one anything, except to love on another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not covet”; and any other commandment, are summed up in this word, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is fulfilling the law.(Fortune 34).

Fortune establishes the use of the term “guidelines” as opposed to “rules or laws” because guidelines are “an internal anchor which can inform your decision-making” while rules or laws “are externally imposed requirements” (Fortune 38). Guidelines allow humans to be responsible for their “actions as moral agents and decision makers”(Fortune 38). Holmgren posits “axioms” as “basic principles that are widely accepted as a basis for further thinking and reasoning together” (Holmgren 19). Both affirm the need for basic Christian-based guidelines on which discernment can begin rather than specific and absolute codes of ethics.

As her book title suggests, Fortune focuses on “love does no harm” as a general guideline for looking at relationships. She derives this guideline from Paul’s Letter to the Romans 13:10, “Love does no wrong to neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law” (Fortune 34). As she goes on to explain, this guideline needs further specification because love “has been so overused and misunderstood” (Fortune 140). She posits the need for equality in intimate relationships citing Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians 7:3 “The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband” (Fortune 118). The patriarchal influence throughout history has influenced and endorsed the imbalance of power in relationships. Patriarchal influences in the church have divided the body of the church into the powerful and the powerless, thus sometimes doing the very harm we are instructed to avoid.

Holmgren suggests that the words of the baptismal covenant are “the basis for a whole program of Christian ethic for the Christian community” (Holmgren 17). He too focuses on the equality “of sharing this faith as members of One Body” in these Baptismal covenants:

Will you continue in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of the bread, and in the prayers?
Will you persevere in resisting evil, and whenever you fall into sin, repent and return to the Lord?
Will you proclaim by word and example the Good News of God in Christ?
Will you seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving your neighbor as yourself?
Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being? (BCP 304-5)

Focusing on the last two questions, Holmgren shares the same ethical guideline that love should do no harm as Fortune. Seeking and serving Christ in all persons and respecting dignity focuses on honoring the equality of each individual in the eyes of God and the salvation of Christ, granting to all the power to participate in the discernment of God’s will in their lives. Therefore, to deprive anyone participation in discerning God’s will in their lives is a violation of our Baptismal Covenant, especially our willingness to seek and serve Christ in all persons. Establishing ethical standards without the opportunity for discernment is just such a violation.

Invoking standards and declaring judgment is an act that does not conform to Holmgrem’s Baptismal guidelines and does not concur with Fortune’s guideline of love doing not harm. Declaring judgment can be a form of terrorism, in that it is using someone’s fears in order to control them, to make them act in accordance with another’s will. Declaring a relationship bad by the simple fact that it occurs outside the bonds of marriage is just such a form of terrorism. Judgment does not respect the dignity of the individuals to discern God’s will in their lives. While some declare judgment to be an act of love, it is merely an attempt to gain control; an attempt by one part of the body to exert power over others, not to share in the equality. If we truly act out of our Baptismal covenant and love, we will invite the relationships of unmarried persons into our community and offer them our assistance in the discerning of God’s will for the relationship.

One of the goals for a Christian marriage is to invite the couple into the community and offer support for their relationship in the honoring and sharing of God’s gift of love. Just as in Baptism, Holy Matrimony charges the community to be a part of the marriage: “Will all of you witnessing these promises do all in your power to uphold these two persons in their marriage” (BCP 425)? As Eugene Rogers points out marriage is “an acting out of God’s loving image in Christ” (Rogers 270). Hence, the community also joins in the gift of God’s love.

Has the church as the body of Christ shown itself to be open and welcoming of loving relationship or have the patriarchal influences of the church motivated couples in equilateral relationships to move away from the Christian body? The church has only recently begun to deal with the patriarchal influences, showing some interest in equality through the ordination of women. However, many Christians, such as some American Evangelicals, still cling to the 19th century patriarchal model of marriage and would consider Fortune’s philosophy as blasphemous. Randal Balmer asserts that the recent and popular Christian group, Promise Keepers, ideology advocated “a reassertion of patriarchalism” (Balmer 90). Balmer also points out that many Evangelical Christians view the world in dualistic terms of good or evil (Balmer 96). The Religious Right is another very public and vocal group that expresses this Christian dualistic view as well as advocating a return to 19th century patriarchal Christian family values. Their dualistic view propagates that those who share their beliefs are good and those who do not are evil therefore enemies. The Divine Command to love one’s enemies is distorted into a need to convert others to their point of view.

Such public discourses, views and images convey associations that Christianity is a cult with patriarchal mandates. Such mandates are not interested in discerning God’s presence in the relationship; the aim is conformity and control of humans, their relationships and their conduct. Believing in the Puritan City on the Hill concept, many American Christians seek to establish their image of a New Jerusalem through conformity. For people who do not share the same image, Christianity looks not only uninviting, but also undesirable and unneeded. Images of God as conformity and control overwhelm images of God as love and acceptance. Couples who do base their relationships on love and equality rather than conformity and control will reject such images and reject a religion that endorses it.

In Divine Command Theory, the error lies not in God’s will but in human interpretation of God’s will. In the Gospel of Luke, Christ seeks to teach us about our relationship to each other and God’s relationship with us:

Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven; give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap; for the measure you give will be the measure you get back.He also told them a parable: ”Can a blind person guide a blind person? Will not both fall into a pit? A disciple is not above the teacher, but everyone who is fully qualified will be like the teacher. Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbor, ‘Friend, let me take out the speck in your eye,’ when you yourself do not see the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye.” (NRSV, 6:36-42.)

Christ is directing the use of Divine Command Theory. Divine Command Theory must first be merciful just as God is merciful. Christ directs us to first look at our lives and our selves before we seek to advise another. Therefore, as Christians, we must first consider the presence of God’s will in Holy Matrimony. Has the Ritual of Marriage ensured God’s blessing and presence in the couple’s relationship?

The Book of Common Prayer states: “Christian marriage is a solemn and public covenant between a man and a women in the presence of God “ (422). According to the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church, the couple is to sign the following Declaration of Intention:

We, A.B. and C.D., desiring to receive the blessing of Holy Matrimony in the Church, do solemnly declare that we hold
marriage to be a lifelong union of husband and wife as it is set forth in the Book of Common Prayer.
We believe that the union of husband and wife, in heart, body, and mind, is intended by God for their mutual joy; for the help
and comfort given one another in prosperity and adversity; and, when it is God’s will, for the procreation of children and their
nurture in the knowledge and love of the Lord. And we do engage ourselves, so far as in us lies, to make our
utmost effort to establish this relationship and to seek God’s help thereto. (Canon 18.3 e-f, Title I, p. 54)

Holy Matrimony also requires conformity with the laws of the State and must be enter into by free consent of both parties. Free consent means the “mutual consent of heart, mind, and will, and with intent that it be lifelong. That both parties freely and knowingly consent to such marriage, without fraud, coercion, mistake as to identity of a partner, or mental reservation” (Canon 18.2 c Title I). This canon reflects Marie Fortune’s guideline that love does not harm. Holy Matrimony emphasizes the importance of the covenant and the need for God to be a part of the relationship; however, it does not guarantee the God’s presence in a relationship, just as the absence of Holy Matrimony does not guarantee God’s absence from a relationship.

In his sermon, What Is a Christian Ethic? Dietrich Bonhoeffer states “The Christian himself creates his standards of good and evil for himself. Only he can justify his own actions, just as only he can bear responsibility” (367). Christ perfected the law and brought the freedom for everyone to have “a direct relationship to God’s will”, which is to be constantly “sought afresh”(366). If it is with each person to seek God’s will, what is the role does the Church, the body of Christ, play in the search? Christ calls his church to greet the seeker in love, not judgment or exclusion, loving our neighbor as ourselves.

If we, Christians, follow the divine command of Christ in Luke, we cannot condemn or judge a relationship based on solely on marriage. Marriage does not guarantee God’s will or presence within the relationship; the couple must constantly seek it. Divine Command calls us through our Baptismal covenant to seek and serve Christ in all persons in all relationships, married or not. Divine Command calls us to love our neighbors as ourselves, yet as Christ alluded to in Luke, how we love ourselves may be the log in our own eye that needs attention first. The Body of Christ, the church, is called to be an open loving community where couples can come to discern God’s presence in their lives and relationships.

Works Cited
Balmer, Randall Blessed Assurance: A History of Evangelism in America Boston: Beacon Press, 1999.

Book of Common Prayer New York: The Church Hymnal Corporation, 1979

Constitution & Canons for The Episcopal Church New York: Church Publishing Incorporated, 2000.

The New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Version New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.

Fortune, Marie, M., Love Does No Harm: Sexual Ethics of the Rest of Us New York: Continuum, 1998

Holmgren, Stephen, Ethics After Easter Cambridge, Massachusetts: Cowley Publications, 2000.

Kelly, Geffry B. and F. Burton Nelson, eds. A Testament to Freedom: The Essential Writings of Dietrich Bonhoeffer New York: HarperCollins Publisher, 1990.

Rogers, Eugene F. Jr., Sexuality and the Christian Body Malden Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing, 1999.


Works Consulted

Allison, C FitzSimons, Fear, Love, and Worship New York: Seabury Press, 1962.

Anderson, Herbert and Robert Cotton Fite, Becoming Married Louisville Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1993.

Hefling, Charles, ed., Our Selves, Our Souls, and Bodies: Sexuality and the Household of God Boston: Cowley Publications, 1996.

Jordan, Mark D. The Ethics of Sex Malden Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing, 2001.

Kirkpatrick, Frank G., The Ethics of Community Malden Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing, 2001.

Nelson, James B. and Sandra P. Longfellow, eds., Sexuality and the Sacred: Sources for Theological Reflection Louisville Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994.

Renick, Timothy M. Aquinas for Armchair Theologians Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002

Sedgwick, Timothy F., The Christian Moral Life: Practices of Piety Grand Rapids Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999.


Fr. Bill 8:41 AM

|