Comments for Theologia Habitus Est http://frsteverice.com/blog The Blog of Fr. Steve Rice Sat, 05 May 2012 19:57:10 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 Comment on Let’s Talk About Sex – here goes by td barker http://frsteverice.com/blog/?p=1443#comment-8324 td barker Sat, 05 May 2012 19:57:10 +0000 http://frsteverice.com/blog/?p=1443#comment-8324 Sorry for the repeat post. I didn't think the first one went. The second is a slight revision with added commentary. Apologies. Sorry for the repeat post. I didn’t think the first one went. The second is a slight revision with added commentary. Apologies.

]]> Comment on Let’s Talk About Sex – here goes by td barker http://frsteverice.com/blog/?p=1443#comment-8323 td barker Sat, 05 May 2012 16:53:29 +0000 http://frsteverice.com/blog/?p=1443#comment-8323 I get the love one another commandment. However, what does scripture say about homosexuality? It says quite a bit, in the Old and New Testaments. Since God created man and woman, and since he clearly defined what marriage is, it is apparent that homosexuality deviates from that. Bearing children can be a part of a heterosexual marriage, but it isn't a requirement. God simply said that it was not good fopr a man to be alone, and created the female. Scripture calls homosexuality sin. It's not the only sexual sin, as heterosexual fornication, adultery, sex with animals and so forth are also sins. But they are not and should not be celebrated in Christ's church. Anything goes is simply not biblical. I believe that homosexuals, as individuals, should be welcomed in the church, as should all sinners, and should be ministered to. But gays are not special. They don't get a special seat. To speak against it in he church should not be politically incorrect. God Himself hates it. If we can't find moral standards in the church, there is no where else to go. If Christ spent time with such people, it wasn't due to sexual atraction. It was to enlighten them to the Kingdom of God, because he loved them as His creations. He died for all sins and rose again to give us all hope. But to skew the church to fit the sexual preferences and desires of the congregation is to skew Christianity itself. If there are lusts for young children or "beasts of the field", there are those in today's liberal churches who would argue for acceptance of that. Where do we as Chrisatians draw the line as disciples of Christ? Or do we just not draw any, ignore what the Bible says about it, and just do whatever we want, as if there will be no judgment. Again, homosexual acts aren't the only sins, and with repentance, Christ forgives our sins, andpaid the price for us all. But sins of any kind should not be celebrated in the church. Maybe it's not really church any more. Maybe it's something else now. The Church of Man, maybe. The Church of Make Me Feel Good About Me. In the 60's and 70's, it was "do what you feel, and feel what you like", and "if it feels good do it". I think Paul the Apostle might have given a stong response to this way of thinking. But in some of today's churches, this way of thinking seems to be policy. If it makes someone feel better to call this hate, so be it, but it isn't. It's Biblical. Coming to church as you are doesn't necessarily mean staying as you are. I get the love one another commandment. However, what does scripture say about homosexuality? It says quite a bit, in the Old and New Testaments. Since God created man and woman, and since he clearly defined what marriage is, it is apparent that homosexuality deviates from that. Bearing children can be a part of a heterosexual marriage, but it isn’t a requirement. God simply said that it was not good fopr a man to be alone, and created the female. Scripture calls homosexuality sin. It’s not the only sexual sin, as heterosexual fornication, adultery, sex with animals and so forth are also sins. But they are not and should not be celebrated in Christ’s church. Anything goes is simply not biblical. I believe that homosexuals, as individuals, should be welcomed in the church, as should all sinners, and should be ministered to. But gays are not special. They don’t get a special seat. To speak against it in he church should not be politically incorrect. God Himself hates it. If we can’t find moral standards in the church, there is no where else to go. If Christ spent time with such people, it wasn’t due to sexual atraction. It was to enlighten them to the Kingdom of God, because he loved them as His creations. He died for all sins and rose again to give us all hope. But to skew the church to fit the sexual preferences and desires of the congregation is to skew Christianity itself. If there are lusts for young children or “beasts of the field”, there are those in today’s liberal churches who would argue for acceptance of that. Where do we as Chrisatians draw the line as disciples of Christ? Or do we just not draw any, ignore what the Bible says about it, and just do whatever we want, as if there will be no judgment. Again, homosexual acts aren’t the only sins, and with repentance, Christ forgives our sins, andpaid the price for us all. But sins of any kind should not be celebrated in the church. Maybe it’s not really church any more. Maybe it’s something else now. The Church of Man, maybe. The Church of Make Me Feel Good About Me. In the 60′s and 70′s, it was “do what you feel, and feel what you like”, and “if it feels good do it”. I think Paul the Apostle might have given a stong response to this way of thinking. But in some of today’s churches, this way of thinking seems to be policy. If it makes someone feel better to call this hate, so be it, but it isn’t. It’s Biblical. Coming to church as you are doesn’t necessarily mean staying as you are.

]]> Comment on Let’s Talk About Sex – here goes by td barker http://frsteverice.com/blog/?p=1443#comment-8322 td barker Sat, 05 May 2012 04:21:22 +0000 http://frsteverice.com/blog/?p=1443#comment-8322 Well, what does the Bible say about it? I don't understand why, given the way we were created male and female by God, with clear commentary on mariage between a husband and wife, that homosexuality, which to a heterosexual is deviant behavior, would have a place in Christ's church. Gays should be welcomed but not celebrated, if the Holy Word means anything any more. Homosexuality isn't special. It is called sin in scripture. So is heterosexual fornication and adultery, but that isn't and shouldn't be celebrated or condoned in church, either. Same gender unions and sexual encounters seem somewhat unholy and unscriptural, by definition, not too mention confusing to non-gay Christians, who love and forgive the person but not the lifestyle. I've seen gay rallies. Wow. If one can't find moral standards in church, there's no where else to go. Sex with animals or young children is also deviant, but arguments can be made for that in the church, too, by those who enjoy and prefer it. God accepts everything and everybody, right? Repentance in the church is quite out of fashion these days it seems. Anything goes. In the late 1960's, we said, "If it feels good, do it". And today, we do. Well, what does the Bible say about it? I don’t understand why, given the way we were created male and female by God, with clear commentary on mariage between a husband and wife, that homosexuality, which to a heterosexual is deviant behavior, would have a place in Christ’s church. Gays should be welcomed but not celebrated, if the Holy Word means anything any more. Homosexuality isn’t special. It is called sin in scripture. So is heterosexual fornication and adultery, but that isn’t and shouldn’t be celebrated or condoned in church, either. Same gender unions and sexual encounters seem somewhat unholy and unscriptural, by definition, not too mention confusing to non-gay Christians, who love and forgive the person but not the lifestyle. I’ve seen gay rallies. Wow. If one can’t find moral standards in church, there’s no where else to go. Sex with animals or young children is also deviant, but arguments can be made for that in the church, too, by those who enjoy and prefer it. God accepts everything and everybody, right? Repentance in the church is quite out of fashion these days it seems. Anything goes. In the late 1960′s, we said, “If it feels good, do it”. And today, we do.

]]> Comment on Let’s Talk About Sex – here goes by Grace C http://frsteverice.com/blog/?p=1443#comment-8321 Grace C Wed, 02 May 2012 17:20:03 +0000 http://frsteverice.com/blog/?p=1443#comment-8321 Fr. Steve, I think you are onto something. Thank you so much for your thoughtful exploration of a highly-charged topic(s). We DO need "conversations on holy relationships and not using people as a means to something else." Our culture is still very puritanical and repressed when it comes to sex - which of course leads to people freaking out whenever it's mentioned - but why should we not talk about such a wonderful gift from God? I especially appreciated this paragraph: "Perhaps an example: Two friends can love each other deeply. They can share hopes and dreams. They can live in community and offer mutual support. Notice I didn’t say two friends of the same gender or different gender. Why? Because it doesn’t matter. I wonder, and I may be wrong, if the current issue on homosexual/heterosexual relationships is not so much about who can love whom, but what is the role of sex in any relationship." Your post reminds me of a book I've just finished reading, "Marriage: A History," by Stephanie Coontz - a fascinating book that I'd recommend to anyone on either side of the same-sex marriage debate. She raises similar issues: now that marriage is not totally about having kids, then what is marriage (and, by association, sex) really for? Seems like the answer is.... love! I've been blessed with a wonderful, loving partner, whom I would love to be able to legally marry one day. But until then, we will continue to love each other and, as the New Zealand prayer book says, honor each other with our bodies. blessings, Grace C. Fr. Steve, I think you are onto something. Thank you so much for your thoughtful exploration of a highly-charged topic(s). We DO need “conversations on holy relationships and not using people as a means to something else.” Our culture is still very puritanical and repressed when it comes to sex – which of course leads to people freaking out whenever it’s mentioned – but why should we not talk about such a wonderful gift from God?

I especially appreciated this paragraph:

“Perhaps an example: Two friends can love each other deeply. They can share hopes and dreams. They can live in community and offer mutual support. Notice I didn’t say two friends of the same gender or different gender. Why? Because it doesn’t matter. I wonder, and I may be wrong, if the current issue on homosexual/heterosexual relationships is not so much about who can love whom, but what is the role of sex in any relationship.”

Your post reminds me of a book I’ve just finished reading, “Marriage: A History,” by Stephanie Coontz – a fascinating book that I’d recommend to anyone on either side of the same-sex marriage debate. She raises similar issues: now that marriage is not totally about having kids, then what is marriage (and, by association, sex) really for? Seems like the answer is…. love!

I’ve been blessed with a wonderful, loving partner, whom I would love to be able to legally marry one day. But until then, we will continue to love each other and, as the New Zealand prayer book says, honor each other with our bodies.

blessings,
Grace C.

]]> Comment on Let’s Talk About Sex – here goes by Louie Crew http://frsteverice.com/blog/?p=1443#comment-8320 Louie Crew Wed, 02 May 2012 14:37:25 +0000 http://frsteverice.com/blog/?p=1443#comment-8320 38 years into a gay marriage that you show very little signs of understanding, I find your article destructive, and in the context of Amendment One, violent. No where in your piece do you explore the rich and holy complexity of lgbtq unions; no where do you attempt to manifest the attitude Jesus enjoins: "As you would that others should do to you, do you even so to them." While sex is integral to any healthy marriage, it is pornographic to reduce marriage to sex. LGBTQ persons have had quite enough of that, thank you very much, and usually it is done by people who have not been there with us when we have been sick, or hungry, or in prison, or..... If you want to talk about sex, do so, but please talk about your own, not mine. Even more, please don't use NC's egregious Amendment 1 as the prompt for erotic cogitations. Amendment One is designed to restrict the rights of all of us who are lgbtq. The vote on it, whether we like it or not, is indeed binary, and you muddy decisions with 'neutral' reflections about sex. Desmond Tutu has said: "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality." Louie 38 years into a gay marriage that you show very little signs of understanding, I find your article destructive, and in the context of Amendment One, violent.

No where in your piece do you explore the rich and holy complexity of lgbtq unions; no where do you attempt to manifest the attitude Jesus enjoins: “As you would that others should do to you, do you even so to them.”

While sex is integral to any healthy marriage, it is pornographic to reduce marriage to sex. LGBTQ persons have had quite enough of that, thank you very much, and usually it is done by people who have not been there with us when we have been sick, or hungry, or in prison, or…..

If you want to talk about sex, do so, but please talk about your own, not mine. Even more, please don’t use NC’s egregious Amendment 1 as the prompt for erotic cogitations.

Amendment One is designed to restrict the rights of all of us who are lgbtq. The vote on it, whether we like it or not, is indeed binary, and you muddy decisions with ‘neutral’ reflections about sex.

Desmond Tutu has said: “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.”

Louie

]]> Comment on Some Thoughts on Communion Without Baptism by Can You Receive Communion Without Baptism? Part 1 « The Liturgical Christianity Portal http://frsteverice.com/blog/?p=1404#comment-8310 Can You Receive Communion Without Baptism? Part 1 « The Liturgical Christianity Portal Mon, 16 Apr 2012 03:35:27 +0000 http://frsteverice.com/blog/?p=1404#comment-8310 [...] good blog post I read recently addressed the issue of communion without baptism.  Though contrary to the practice [...] [...] good blog post I read recently addressed the issue of communion without baptism.  Though contrary to the practice [...]

]]> Comment on A message to Email Subscribers to Theologia Habitus Est by Kristen Machado http://frsteverice.com/blog/?p=1430#comment-8212 Kristen Machado Tue, 27 Mar 2012 17:08:51 +0000 http://frsteverice.com/blog/?p=1430#comment-8212 Abby is absolutely hysterical! Abby is absolutely hysterical!

]]> Comment on Some Thoughts on Communion Without Baptism by Bryan Gilmer http://frsteverice.com/blog/?p=1404#comment-5108 Bryan Gilmer Mon, 23 Jan 2012 01:37:18 +0000 http://frsteverice.com/blog/?p=1404#comment-5108 I suppose it depends upon whether you view the Eucharist as being welcomed to dinner with Jesus or consummating your marriage to him. A series of intimate encounters over dinner is quite appropriate before a marriage that cannot be undone. I do view the Eucharist as being welcomed to dinner and offered the gifts of Christ's redeeming sacrifice; therefore, like all the banquets Jesus preached about, I envision it having quite a ragtag bunch of dinner guests, all feeling somehow drawn to him but with varying levels of commitment and understanding, but all completely loved and welcomed and accepted just as they are. If you do look at baptism as marriage and at eucharist as the intimate experience for only those who have committed to one another, that would make more sense to me if we baptized consenting adults rather than infants, or still required confirmation before taking communion. I think that by allowing small children to receive communion, we accept the idea that communion is a real experience that forms us into Christians. However sound your theology for excluding (and I don't find much backing for a theology of exclusion in Jesus' teachings, by the way), many visitors to church will simply hear all this talk of Jesus and supper and wonder why they do not seem welcome to the meal. As a baptized, confirmed Episcopalian, I have experienced this hurt, rejection and sense of judgment when attending weddings at Catholic churches and being told pointedly by the priest that only baptized Catholics may take communion there. Incidentally, I was baptized in the Southern Baptist church (before a decade or so of young-adult absence from church), and the Episcopal Church accepted that baptism as legitimate even though the church that did it considered it an ordinance and not a sacrament and had a wholly different understanding of the significance of The Lord's Supper. I was welcomed to Christ's table in the Episcopal Church, and now more than 12 years later am still finding new meaning in communion each Sunday I receive it. So it's formation for me, too, as a 39-year-old man. That the church welcomed me to Christ's table right away likely made the difference between me becoming an enthusiastic member of the Episcopal Church and ultimately, a Vestryperson, as I did, instead of perhaps never becoming part of a Christian community as an adult. Also, I don't see what possible harm can come from anyone receiving the body and blood of Christ. It certainly won't change any believer's relationship with Christ, so I don't get your chaotic sport analogy. If you truly believe Christ is present in the Eucharist, won't God work it out with each person who experiences it with him without our intervention? Who is wearing the devalued uniforms here -- all believers, or just the gatekeepers? I suppose it depends upon whether you view the Eucharist as being welcomed to dinner with Jesus or consummating your marriage to him. A series of intimate encounters over dinner is quite appropriate before a marriage that cannot be undone. I do view the Eucharist as being welcomed to dinner and offered the gifts of Christ’s redeeming sacrifice; therefore, like all the banquets Jesus preached about, I envision it having quite a ragtag bunch of dinner guests, all feeling somehow drawn to him but with varying levels of commitment and understanding, but all completely loved and welcomed and accepted just as they are.

If you do look at baptism as marriage and at eucharist as the intimate experience for only those who have committed to one another, that would make more sense to me if we baptized consenting adults rather than infants, or still required confirmation before taking communion. I think that by allowing small children to receive communion, we accept the idea that communion is a real experience that forms us into Christians.

However sound your theology for excluding (and I don’t find much backing for a theology of exclusion in Jesus’ teachings, by the way), many visitors to church will simply hear all this talk of Jesus and supper and wonder why they do not seem welcome to the meal. As a baptized, confirmed Episcopalian, I have experienced this hurt, rejection and sense of judgment when attending weddings at Catholic churches and being told pointedly by the priest that only baptized Catholics may take communion there.

Incidentally, I was baptized in the Southern Baptist church (before a decade or so of young-adult absence from church), and the Episcopal Church accepted that baptism as legitimate even though the church that did it considered it an ordinance and not a sacrament and had a wholly different understanding of the significance of The Lord’s Supper. I was welcomed to Christ’s table in the Episcopal Church, and now more than 12 years later am still finding new meaning in communion each Sunday I receive it. So it’s formation for me, too, as a 39-year-old man. That the church welcomed me to Christ’s table right away likely made the difference between me becoming an enthusiastic member of the Episcopal Church and ultimately, a Vestryperson, as I did, instead of perhaps never becoming part of a Christian community as an adult.

Also, I don’t see what possible harm can come from anyone receiving the body and blood of Christ. It certainly won’t change any believer’s relationship with Christ, so I don’t get your chaotic sport analogy. If you truly believe Christ is present in the Eucharist, won’t God work it out with each person who experiences it with him without our intervention? Who is wearing the devalued uniforms here — all believers, or just the gatekeepers?

]]> Comment on Some Thoughts on Communion Without Baptism by Fr. Steve http://frsteverice.com/blog/?p=1404#comment-5026 Fr. Steve Thu, 19 Jan 2012 21:33:23 +0000 http://frsteverice.com/blog/?p=1404#comment-5026 The one distinction I would make in the LCMS scenario is that the 'fencing' went beyond baptism and into membership status. But, I agree, catechesis again and again is a much needed and holy thing. The one distinction I would make in the LCMS scenario is that the ‘fencing’ went beyond baptism and into membership status. But, I agree, catechesis again and again is a much needed and holy thing.

]]> Comment on Some Thoughts on Communion Without Baptism by John R, Shannon http://frsteverice.com/blog/?p=1404#comment-5025 John R, Shannon Thu, 19 Jan 2012 21:30:31 +0000 http://frsteverice.com/blog/?p=1404#comment-5025 This is, of course, an important issue and needs vetting. It seems to me that any attempt to do what the early Calvinists used to call "fencing the table"is unworkable and certainly to many offensive.I remember that my wife, when we were Lutheran, attended a Missouri Synod parish and was denied communion, how deeply that hurt. It seems to me that more important than baptism per se is the triviality and poor understnading of the sacrement on the part of those who are surely eligible. Perhaps we need a more thorough discussion of the sacraments in general and Holy Communion in particular. This is, of course, an important issue and needs vetting. It seems to me that any attempt to do what the early Calvinists used to call “fencing the table”is unworkable and certainly to many offensive.I remember that my wife, when we were Lutheran, attended a Missouri Synod parish and was denied communion, how deeply that hurt. It seems to me that more important than baptism per se is the triviality and poor understnading of the sacrement on the part of those who are surely eligible. Perhaps we need a more thorough discussion of the sacraments in general and Holy Communion in particular.

]]>