I've been preparing to write about the gardens at St. Mark's Church where I work, or our food pantry or the power of place, but the state of New York and The Episcopal Church keep making strides on marriage, bringing the inner workings of our church into the national media and since this won't always be the case, I have one further point to make on this issue.
In much of the Christian world, marriage is a sacrament. Sacraments are understood slightly differently in different Christian traditions. You can find an Eastern Orthodox understanding here. In the Episcopal tradition, some would say there are only two sacraments, Baptism and Holy Eucharist (Holy Communion). Some, me included, would say there are more, including Marriage.
Our church was mentioned in The Guardian a few weeks ago and inadvertently entered a bit of a controversy about sacraments. A member of our church and Guardian writer Theo Hobson writes about how he has found our style of worship at St. Mark's Church, particularly how we approach the preparation, consecration and distribution of the elements at the sacrament of the Holy Eucharistic, deeply moving. We don't have pews; we sit in chairs arranged in a large circle around the altar, which is a 5' wide, round, low table. At the time of communion we gather around the table. I have heard from many in the congregation that it is surprisingly quite moving. In response to Theo's article, we've heard some concern from people deeply committed to other styles of worship, that our worship feels threatening to their preferred style. I think their concern speaks to the same impulse Theo is writing about. Sitting in rows in what has come to be traditional in The Episcopal Church, observing a late medieval style of ritual, is deeply moving for them.
Religious practices are not simply a matter of intellectual submission or ecclesiastical orthodoxy or canon law. When they work, we are changed. The Buddhist discipline in meditation might be the best-known example of ritual that changes individuals and communities, but we too, as Christians, practice rituals in the belief that we are centered in the presence of God and community to the sacred at work in our midst through the regular practice of ritual. It is not simply a matter of belief, but a matter of experience.
Christians in the traditions I know, Anglicanism and Eastern Orthodoxy, believe we are participating in a narrative far greater than our lived experiences, defined in the relationship of the Creator with Creation or Christ with the Church. For the Orthodox the Church mitigates that relationship. For Anglicans there is that established reality, the Church, and some space for more of an emerging understanding of God as knowledge influences wisdom. Whether it is the pre-colonial liturgies of the Middle Ages, the Broad Church practice of the majority of Episcopalians or the Post-Colonial circle at St. Mark's, Anglican ritual responds to the divisions of our day with a Godly desire for reconciliation, enacted in ritual.
Which brings us to marriage. Now that it's legal for same sex couples to marry, Episcopalians, whose canons (church laws) say that we marry in conformity with the laws of the church and the state are invited to a sacramental understanding of marriage beyond gender. For most of us that has been an intellectual exercise that seems reasonable enough because of our experience of our own relationships and other wonderful gay and lesbian couples in our congregations and communities. Some of us have offered blessings to same sex couples for some time now, in acts that move us towards recognizing these relationships as sacramental in nature, at least on the very local level. The Gospels call us to "testify to what we see" and we do. The church as a whole, however, has not expanded its notion of marriage beyond gender. Sacraments are foundational to our understanding of God at work in the world, so significant conformity is expected, but we are also a tradition that takes our lived reality seriously.
For those of us aware of the history of the Church and those people the Church has been slow to recognize as fully deserving of all sacraments, it is not that much of a stretch to imagine that there are still others whose full humanity remains invisible to the establishment and whose inclusion requires the institution to take risky and seemingly novel stands. The recognition of the full humanity of people who are not at least middle class and English men, all women, people of differing physical, intellectual or emotional abilities, and shamefully many others are fairly new innovations in the Church. Depending upon your understanding of gender, this might or might not be comparable to the pews vs. chairs dilemma. What brings some to God and the Church can be profoundly alienating to others.
It might be easier for us in The Episcopal Church because as a tradition we do not say that marriage is specifically for the purpose of procreation or the nurture of children. We acknowledge the validity and wholeness of married couples that do not produce or care for children. Unlike some traditions, we do not say the Church mitigates marriage. We celebrate interfaith marriages. We say marriage is a covenant made between the two who seek from the Church the blessing of their marriage. We have said that clergy (priests, deacon and bishops) are advised to respond pastorally (compassionately and appropriately with discernment to emerging situations) in places where civil marriage between persons of the same sex is allowed.
For most of us that sounds like permission to marry, but the disparity of responses in the Episcopal Diocese in the state of New York illustrates that the church overall has not done the work of expanding the definition of marriage. In our tradition, change tends to come after a period of local testing, so this is not unusual, but we are not yet done. We meet as a body triennially in General Convention to discern our future on exactly this kind of issue.
A sacrament, and I believe marriage is one, is a manifestation of God's grace and love, an outward and visible sign, we say. Something you can see and understand that points to what God might be like.
The relationship between two people in marriage as we understand it today is miraculous and holy. That is obvious when we know people who are wonderful together, and it is also illustrated in its holiness when relationship is fraught with struggle, betrayal, misunderstanding, annoying family burdens or old baggage. The fact that we choose to hold together when nothing in the world demands it of us is also a sign that we are more than creatures ruthlessly pursuing our individual good. We seek relationship; we love; we risk, and in doing so, we are participating in the Biblical narrative of the faithful who seek the face of God.
Follow Rev. Winnie Varghese on Twitter: www.twitter.com/wsvarghese
I read the Greek New Testament weekly with my former pastor (who has now passed away) for over 20 years. Before that I had five years of Greek in college where I read everything from Homer to the early Church Fathers, including Xenophon, Sophocles, Euripides, Plato, and Byzantine Greek. While there are a number of Greek dialects, your figure of 60 is too high. But Homer is a lot different from Xenophon, which is very close to New Testament Greek. And while the whole Bible was not written in Greek, the New Testament was. I also studied Hebrew, but never got passed one advanced course. I wish I had had more time to devote to Hebrew study, but that was not the case for my life.
None of this makes me an expert, although I am well read in biblical studies, as well as having the technical ability to read and understand Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. So the accusation that I had not read the Bible, not studied it seriously, and was largely uninformed about the Bible is simply not true.
Actually, I have never explained away the meaning of Roman 1.The Bible (and Roman 1) condemns homosexuality. I’ve always stated that fact. Indeed many years ago I was published in “Bible Review” stating that fact. What I usually say is this: “homosexuality is not a sin, no more than eating non-kosher (and yet both are condemned in the Bible).” In other words, I admit that homosexuality is condemned in the Bible, but that most of us progressive Christians now proclaim that it is not a sin. The Bible lists a large number of things which were once considered to be sin, and now are not, homosexuality is no different.
So, if you are going to try to present my point of view in order to attack it, I would greatly appreciate it if you would get it right. All Christians are “cherry-pickers” (as the metaphor is often used), we pick some passages and ignore others. 1 Peter 3:3 is merely one text (among many) in the New Testament which most conservative Christians conveniently ignore. It is not “Jewish law” as you claim, but Christian law.
==It *is* different because unlike these Jewish laws, it is reiterated in the New Testament
in several epistles-unlike that alleged "prohibition of jewelry" which is only mentioned once
and which in fact does not imply what you wish to infer in any case.==
In the Romans 1 is ClEARLY states you will NOT Enter The Kingdom Of Heaven if you are a practice the Homosexualality.
Now as far as I wearing Gold and Eating Kosher Food does NOT state I will NOT Enter The Kingdom Of Heaven for wear Gold or Eating Kosher Food.
Its a Big Differnce..Ones Salvation is at Stake ...
The key phrase is the first five words; there is nothing in the Greek text to suggest “merely external.” Literally, “of which let the external [adornment] not be …” Obviously translators face the same pressures as all conservative Christians who do not practice the clear and unambiguous commandment of this passage, namely they want to soften its commandment because they themselves do not practice what it teaches.
and only want to misuse to try and "prove" those who disagree with
you are hypocrites. There are so many translations of that and
Lara's is better than yours. The spirit of the passage
is to entreat women to cultivate inner beauty. Not to pounce on
somebody for wearing a wedding band.
(talk about hyper fundamentalism!) The letter killeth but the spirit
giveth life. Get a *life* Steven! A *spiritual* life.
FYI There is no law in the New Testament, only grace
and mercy. The testament does not take effect until the death of the testator
(Jesus). See Hebrews chapter 9. verses 16-22.
The fact is there are a large number of New Testament commandments most conservative Christian don't follow. What about you, do you cover your head when you pray?
With a 50% divorce rate, marriage is no more "miraculous" than a coin-toss.
'1984'
As for "abusing God's word by interpreting and twisting it to fit their own personal agendas" well, you're doing just that yourself, aren't you?
As for accepting the bible, I require my reference works to have higher standards than the bible. You see, the bible said that our sun is not the center of our universe.
Your bible prescribes killing children merely for being disobedient. Your bible permits selling your children into slavery. You'll understand, then, why I do not follow your bible.
What I do not understand, though, is why you believe in killing children and supporting slavery. Shame on you.
You keep citing OLD Testament laws...given to a very specific set of people to be followed (to prove their obedience to God). We now follow New Testament laws...re read your scripture before you have the audacity to tell me WHAT I support. You do not know me. I am not telling you that you have to believe WHAT I believe in, shame on you!
Well, I guess I have an opinion on this...people are starting to realize I always have an opinion...but maybe the answer is this. Seperation of church and state. Yep...I said it. Jesus said render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's and unto God what is God's
So if you don't want God to play a factor in your marriage...don't go to a church to get married...Go to City Hall. But if you do want God to be a factor...follow the God Guidelines, and go to a church. See God deemed that marriage was between a man and a woman. The government is saying it doesn't matter. Conflict of interest resolved. If you don't want God in your marriage...I guess this falls under that same "Free Will" clause as everything else.
As for fear and hate. I can only speak for myself, but I am not scared of homosexuals. I've known quite a few of them. Nothing to be scared of. And I did not hate any of them. People misunderstand the true message of Christianity due to some of these religious fanatics that scream false messages of hate to the masses in the "name of God". But we do believe that it is sinful. It is not the only thing we believe is sinful though, and I promise you that I am just as passionate about teaching against other acts of sin as I am this one.
I believe that marriage was instituted by God...not government. You can study the history of man and see that marriage was always a religious ceremony. So maybe it isn't religion and marriage that should divorce, but rather government and marriage.
If you are confused if your Church doesn't adhere to the Word of G-D, LEAVE THAT CHURCH! Immediately, without hesitation because it ceases being a Church once they commit to the world and worldly ideals. There is no gray area, its either man or G-D you cannot have both. So save yourselves and get out. http://www.yahwehyeshua.com
1 Peter 3:1-5 states: Wives, in the same way, accept the authority of your husbands, so that, even if some of them do not obey the word, they may be won over without a word by their wives' conduct, 2 when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. 3 Do not adorn yourselves outwardly by braiding your hair, and by wearing gold ornaments or fine clothing; 4 rather, let your adornment be the inner self with the lasting beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in God's sight. 5 It was in this way long ago that the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves by accepting the authority of their husbands.(NRSV).
I have a close friend who was a "Promise Keeper" (remember those?), and he told me that he was the authority in his family, the authority over his wife. He was quite adamant about this point, after all, his wife told him to say so.
Upon seeing the animals living in pairs and groups Adam desired it and slept thinking about it. He dreamed the operation and awoke with a girl [she later conceived] present. The dream meant the way for two man to live together is for one to loose masculinity and the other femininity creating opposite attraction called love. However it isn't related to the gender of the flesh.
If the "one flesh" means the two bodies then one could satisfy the hunger, thirst, feel their pains and so on of the other. Since that doesn't happen it means each "woman" are to develop the attribute in the other and become man again. That's what the sacrament of marriage symbolizes and to see the perfection (I Corinthians 13:9-10) see http://prop1.org/protest/elijah/vision.htm#bible
-2 people of opposite sex,
-of the same race,
-of the same religion,
-of families with the same country of origin,
-of families with generally the same socioeconomic status,
-and of families who approve of the union.
(there was a suggestion of love, but it was decided that should be optional)
We never had problems with this type of marriage (No matter what some Veronese "star-crossed lovers" will tell you.)