Today's Sydney Morning Herald reports on an unusual public exchange of recriminations between Reverend Richard Lane of Sydney's St. Stephen's Church and Australia High Court Justice Michael Kirby. In an ABC Radio interview last year, Kirby said that the Anglican and Catholic archbishops had made it difficult for people to adopt a more tolerant attitude toward gays. In a letter to Kirby, Rev. Lane denounced him for calling himself a Christian Anglican while living in an openly gay relationship . He warned him that he faces God's judgment, and encouraged him to open himself to "God's healing of homosexuality." Writing in reply, Justice Kirby said that Lane's biblical interpretation in not a universal one, and that the biblical quotations Lane used were unreliable mid-19th century translations.
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
Posts
28 comments:
Lane needs to back off and lay off things of which he knows nothing.
It's not his job (not the job of any priest) to pass judgement. Acording to them, it's God's bailiwick. So let them stand back and let God do it himself...
I think this is great. Justices in America are insulated from any sort of real criticism. They live in gated communities. When they speak (which is usually at law schools are other such events), they are treated like gods and paid large sums of money. Legislators are loathe to critize them lest they been seen as trying to usurp the Judiciary.
It's only right that people call judges (wherever they're from) on their garbage, whether it be personal or judicial. They need to be reminded their public officials, just like every other public official.
Marco
Chimera,
How do you know Lane knows not of which he speaks? Are you privy to his conversation with God? If not, then don't pass judgment on him to avoid a position of hypocrisy.
I submit we are all privy to this conversation (God: Homosexuality is sinful b/c it is written so in Holy Scripture; Humankind: Okay, thanks for the information, God). The Bible is not a secret book, but a very open book, so it is just as appropriate for Lane to point out this out as it is for a fellow person to tell someone who is approaching a pit while blindfolded, "Hey, watch out for the hole."
Lane is not the judge; You're right about that. Judgment has already been passed handed down on the action of homosexuality by the Eternal Judge. In fact, judgment is also written out on people who see others making big mistakes and do or say nothing for fear of offending. Christians are directed to speak the truth in love, but not to back down from the truth.
I can't improve on Stephen's comment.
Except I would make these points:
God's word says we are made in God's image as male and female, so that gives our sexuality a sacred aspect.
A man and wife are to become one flesh (in marrige) and be fruitful and multiply
God forbade explicitly all sex outside of hetero marriage and describes homosexuality as forbidden in both testaments
Homosexuality is forbidden along with sex with close relatives (incest), adultery, fornication, bestiality --and transvestism --and by obvious implication, transgendering and shacking up.
So gays aren't selected out for particular discrimination and disapproval --their chosen behaviors are just part of a long list of prohibitions for our own safety and health, for our own good.
"If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."
the New Testament lists ex-homosexuals as converts, with others who had forsaken past sins.
The Reverend in this news story is reminding a church member that he is not living according to his church but living according to his wants. that's his job --to preach what he believes to be the truth.
Really good post there Stephen, what grade r u in? Let me guess ... 'privy' used twice, and not once alluding to outhouse/wipe your bottom humor... 6th?
Seriously, your brazen stupidity should make any Christian with an education melt with shame. Your writing doesn't help your cause at all.
I am a Christian with an education and I did not melt with shame over Stephen's post.
why the ad hominem attack response here, Tim?
We believe the Bible is true --and clear on the issue of sexuality and morality. I assume you don't believe the same way.
Even if the Bible were not true, there would be many good reasons to discourage homosexual activity and identification --just as there are many good reasons to enforce laws against polygamy.
Stephen, if your god is so offended by anyone's sexual life, he can take care of it himself. If he's so powerful, he doesn't need anyone like Lane.
As for Lane's "conversations with God" -- I'm only hearing from one side, so far. I need more information. And I need it from the participants, not the wishful-thinkers and extrapolators.
"We believe the Bible is true --and clear on the issue of sexuality and morality."
You go right ahead. But keep it to yourself. Nobody else is interested in hearing about it, including the
Australian judge.
Tim,
Something on point, please.
Chimera,
Again, where do the contradictions end? You offer your position with the air of a hypothetical detached neutral observer, but fail to see that it is a value judgement nonetheless. What you are really saying is "My value system doesn't see a conflict, and my value system is better than yours, so keep your comments revealing your value system to yourself." No comment is value-neutral.
"if you god is so offended by anyone's sexual life, he can take care of it himself. If he's so powerful, he doesn't need anyone like Lane."
-Apparent from this comment is you have a different understanding of God's economy of action. I suggest He already has begun to take care of it. He informed us by biological design that the human reproductive organs are matched, and that defecation comes from the excretory system. They are not compatible. He also tells us to let people know this as well as meet their relational needs (not read: relational wants) while helping them overcome. God then shows us by His natural order from the myriad health problems incident with homosexual sexual activity. This, though, still doesn't work. Consider the rage against a few gay-rights activists in the U.S. who had the audacity to suggest in the rise of the AIDS epidemic that gay men in San Francisco stop frequenting the bathhouses for anonymous encounters. They were black-listed and shouted out by people who would trade a few moments of twisted passion against a gigantic risk of a fatal disease. It is not just heterosexual ministers who bear the wrath of those opposed to hearing a value judgment.
The God of the Bible is not a far-off deity, but one who is both imminent as well as personal, who cares deeply about us and wants us to live according to His design. He spares not methods to reach us, including His incarnation. He also uses people as well to communicate his message. Lane is not at fault for being part of that effort.
"You go right ahead. But keep it to yourself. Nobody else is interested in hearing about it, including the Australian judge."
-See above comments on neutrality
Well, God does take care of it himself, Chimera --weren't AIDS and HERPES warnings enough against the diseases of promiscuity? Now we have the HPV throat cancer and the flesh eating bacteria afflicting people who practice sodomy, first of all, and promiscuity. All the other STD's have also run rampant in the gay and promiscuous straight populations.
Meanwhile, the church is sounding the alarm --that God doesn't approve of it. Rev. Lane is trying to do Justice Kirby and all the young people a favor --and tell him to repent and get out before something bad happens to his health. You can't sanitize or justify these high risk sexual behaviors.
"He informed us by biological design that the human reproductive organs are matched, and that defecation comes from the excretory system. They are not compatible."
Not compatable? In that case, why are the outlets for male excretory organs the same as his sexual organs? Not far removed from the reptilian cloaca, in fact.
And if you've never used something other than a hammer with which to drive a nail, then we can talk about the purity of intended use versus variations on a theme.
The fact is, the human brain is the sex organ. Those bits of sensitive flesh -- wherever they happen to be -- are only the tools. And some of us have more varied toolboxes than others.
And when did it become anyone's province to rip someone else's private life to shreds in a public forum? Shall we examine your marriage on the front page of tomorrow's newspaper?
And for everybody who wants to bring health issues into the discussion: when you have medical degrees, we can talk. Okay?
And yes, it appears that I was contradicting myself in the above coment about "organs."
I was simply making a point. Most people call those bits of flesh "organs," so it's simply a communications device that I use the same words I know you'll understand. Don't make a big deal of it.
Chimera,
While you tend to avoid most of my arguments, I'll forego that and address yours in turn as a few premises refute your logic.
The issue is one of function. The internal function of the excretory system, particularly the rectum and large intestine, moves out waste via a parastaltic wave. It never (read: never, ever, ever) has a biologically based lubrication system activated by sexual arousal. The vagina does. The walls of the rectum are made for water regulation. The vaginal wall is made of muscle capable of contraction for intercourse and expansion for childbirth. Incidentally, this double function suggests why the urethra and vagina are seperate on a woman while economized on a man--the male urethra only has 1 direction of travel, so why use 2 openings?
Saying that their proximity suggests any compatible function is like arguing that one can go 55 mph/kph in a restaurant drive-through simply because it is near a highway entrance.
Regarding your purity argument and "intended use" versus "variations on a theme"-when you paint such a broad brush who could attack such an argument. The real argument is more specific. Sure, a 20 ton pile driver will drive in a finishing nail, but are they compatible with each other. Is there any relevant comparison besides being 'another bodily orifice' which suits the rectum for copulation?
Private life in a public forum? When Kirby joined the Anglican community, he voluntarily submitted to membership in a mutual community, one which has standards of accountability.
Examination of my marriage? If I have an issue and we voluntarily become mutually accountable, feel free to speak.
Medical degrees? That "if you have no degree in a field you can't comment" is petty. I have a J.D. and an M.A. in Biblical Interpretation, so I have the law and theology covered, but no medical degree. This objection of yours, however, refuses the facts which are open to everyone and is more of a retreat to ignorance rather than an intellectually honest exploration. It's like saying one must have a degree in electrical engineering to tell another that the pointy ends of the toaster power cord don't both go in one's nose but in the electrical wall outlet.
Well, I missed the contradiction.
My husband has the degree --and he says anal and oral sodomy are unnatural, unnecessary, unhealthy --and high risk behaviors for disease --now more than ever because we are surely doing more of it with all the encouragment to "sex-perimentation" by youth. He believes MOST adult homosexuals were molested as kids and/or fatherless --or lacking good relationship with fathers. Says this is true of the ones he has treated.
Chimera wrote: And when did it become anyone's province to rip someone else's private life to shreds in a public forum?
Just how private WAS Justice Kirby's sex life, anyway? The article here says he was interviewed and criticized the church leaders. So who made a public issue of his lifestyle, after all?? It appears that the minister wrote him AFTER the interview. The article says he was in an OPENLY gay relationship.
Yes, Stephen mentioned excretory functions not being mixed with sexual functions--and yet it's true that in the male the same organ is used for urination as for intercourse--
But Stephen is right if he suggests that the back door for excrement was never designed for penetration.
And since the HPV oral throat cancer findings, I'm concluding that oral sex is taboo also for health safety.
It's time all the little boys and girls learned why they are boys and girls --for God's purposes regardless of any fantasies they have about being the opposite sex or having sex with the same sex. It's the parents' job to make kids glad to be what they are, capable of being husbands and dads --or wives and mothers.
By the way --According to the linked article, it wasn't the minister's idea to make the letters between him and the justice public.
"Well, I missed the contradiction."
Of course, you did. I actually was talking to Stephen, right then, anyway.
"And since the HPV oral throat cancer findings, I'm concluding that oral sex is taboo also for health safety."
That, right there, is one of the prime examples of why I don't want to discuss "medical" issues with you. That, and your favorite new hobby horse, necrotizing fasciitis. Ignorant guesswork and false conclusions based on wishful thinking is not a debate. It's worse than stupid. It's dangerous.
If your husband wants to jump in with his degree, let him. He and I can talk together on a level that you very likely won't understand.
Stephen, since when does anyone's marriage become everyone's business? An openly gay relationship means that he refuses to deny his love for his partner, Johan van Vloten, and that he does, indeed, love this man, and lives with him in a marriage relationship. It does not mean that you get to set up a telescope outside his bedroom window and monitor him for sexual activity any more than you get to monitor the sex life of anyone else who is not breaking the law.
If his church has a proble with his being gay, they can take it up with him in private. It really is not up to anyone else.
Leave the man alone, dammit!
Chimera,
A conversation is like a tennis match. You hit a ball (the topic of conversation) back and forth. Sure, you may not like the speed or the spin your opposing player puts on it, but at no time is it okay to let the ball pass by unless you are conceding the point.
You have done that with nearly each of my points. It suggests you are just here to argue for the sake of pride rather than to be a co-seeker of true Truth with the rest of us in this life journey
As I wrote before, an Anglican (read: a person who VOLUNTARILY agreed to become a member of a body of believers subscribing to the traditions and beliefs of Anglican Christianity) has made a choice to intentionally make it someone else's business about his sexual practices. I know of no article on peeping toms or spying and do not justify it. I am just responding to the premise of Kirby professing the Anglican faith. He made it up to "anyone else" who is a Christian by his VOLUNTARY commitment to the Anglican faith.
What if you were in a rugby club and agreed to play by the rugby rules and then one day decided that you really don't like having to give up the ball when you're tackled, or you decide that whenever you toss the ball up to your opponent you get 500 bonus points? Would you then object to your teammates saying, "Hey, those are not the rules you agreed to abide by."? Would you then further be upset when they said, "Hey, stick by the rules of the rugby club or don't call yourself a rugby club player because you are defacing the rugby club."? Kirby made his decision open to everyone in the Anglican leadership when he joined VOLUNTARILY the Anglican church. Why don't you ask him why now he wants to change only for himself the rules but still consider himself part of the original organization?
God doesn't expect the well to come to him. We are all broken and wounded. However, he doesn't leave us there and wants for us to get better. Sure, Jesus told the people not to judge the woman caught in adultery (see previous post on judging, b/c He had already given the judgment in the 10 commandments), but he also said, "Go and sin no more." To give all the judgment without the love to be sure is a death sentence, but it appears you want to back away and have all the acceptance with no truth, which is a lie. God wants us to change by the power of His Spirit.
Reminder: please respond to this point about the voluntary nature of his Anglican association.
Are you a doctor, Chimera, that you can claim to talk on the same level as my husband? which you presume to be over my head? He has no more to do with computers than he has to.
I read about the New eng. Journal of Medicine having an article about this disease --epicenter San Francisco gay population--and spreading to other cities through the gays but feared to enter the straight population as HIV/AIDS did in the USA. I trusted my source which came in the mail. I have no reason yet to think it was misinfo.
Meanwhile, I have found the info about HPV STD's afflicting nearly all gay men who practice anal sodomy --and also giving throat cancer to hetero or homosexuals who practice oral sex. I bet that practice was not common among heteros --nor was homosexuality as common in the USA until the 1960's, --with the sexual revolution and the divorce increase, and the STD epidemics that followed --which continue to this day. I think fatherless culture increases homosexual tendency and gay self-image among youth --no guidance, nor affirmation for one's normal sexuality. anything goes.
Stephen, as far as I know, you are not the one who writes rules of engagement in blogging or debate. When I have a rebuttal for one of your points, I will say so. If I do not reply to one of your points, it means that, for one reason or another, I have nothing to say regarding that point. And if I see that the "tennis ball" is going out of bounds, I feel no obligation to chase it.
"Are you a doctor, Chimera, that you can claim to talk on the same level as my husband?"
Try me.
"I trusted my source which came in the mail. I have no reason yet to think it was misinfo."
I have no reason to trust any source until I see it and know whence it came.
Thanks, Chimera for the technical name of the flesh-eating disease. I found this NYTimes article on it.
I trust this will satisfy your skepticism?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/health/15infe.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
In fact I have links to both articles on my blog www.thebarbwire.blogspot.com.
Chimera,
I do not claim to be the king of blog debate. My comment arose from the paucity of logic in your claims and the deafening silence of your rebuttals.
Even a baseball player, when watching three good pitches go by with no swing, is called out.
Barb,
Have a good time but any further effort appears wasted. Our dialogue opposite is in full intellectual retreat and denial. Later.
Stephen --are you the same Stephen defending the Anglican liberals two blogs up? In which case, you are confusing me as to your perspective...
"Even a baseball player, when watching three good pitches go by with no swing, is called out."
It's the batter, not the pitcher, who decides which pitches are "good." When I see one I like, I'll swing. Count on it.
Aha! But the umpire decides --not the batter!
Will somebody please tell me --are there TWO STephens? Or am I misunderstanding one of them? or is there one bi-brained Stephen??
Looks like two stephens to me, Barb. One alwasys signs the bottom of his posts and has a blogger link, the one on this thread does not.
Thank you, CL. ARe you Prof. Friedman by any chance --or does he not comment?
"Aha! But the umpire decides --not the batter!"
There is no umpire in this game. And it's the batter who decides whether or not to swing. Always.
I don't think he comments here, Barb, and I am certainly not him.
I don't know if you've noticed, but the blog is largely neutral in tone -- Professor Friedmann doesn't give much in the way of commentary or opinion in the postings. I, however, am fairly clearly not neutral.
Post a Comment