I write this post on the eve of the Eames Report. I know in both parishes there is not one mind among you, but rather a plethora of various views and undefinable depths of emotions voiced and unvoiced. Tomorrow a report is being issued which reviews the situation of the Church in the United States and Canada, and the roles of homosexual persons therein, specifically in response to the ordination of Gene Robinson as bishop and the presence of unions in Canada and the USA in the Church. The report reviews as many sides as possible and will offer at least one suggestion as how to best deal with the situation that has unfolded. Already one can find "leaks" as to what the report is going to say, and already are people on both sides (more liberal or more conservative) bracing for the best and the worst possible scenarios.
Among all this disagreement there are also many among you who are untouched by these issues, who have no opinion, or who are not passionate enough with their opinion to express it. For you it is perhaps the hardest as there are many pressures pushing you to be one way or another. I implore you as a middle ground to call both sides to the altar together to break bread and seek reconciliation.
Yet as the Church deals with this situation, so too is our nation at a point of discernment. Across our states, and in GA specifically, there is an amendment offered which is tantamount to illegalizing the possibility for two committed homosexuals to be united legally. One would be hard pressed to find someone who has not heard of the proposed Amendment to our US Constitution.
I am not one to be political, however I will point out that these amendments are hidden behind the phrase "defense of marriage". The point is to define marriage as union between a man and a woman. The insinuated antithesis, is that it is an offense to marriage, or the oposite of marriage for a man and a man or woman and woman to be so united. If one were to want to truly defend marriage, a similar union being illegalized is not the way. Rather I would suggest re-emphasizing the importance and meaning of such a union, deterring people from rushing into marriage, and dealing with the 1/3 of the marriages which end in divorce would be a more direct way of "defending marriage". When the majority of celebrities, people who are held with esteem among the populous, are in second or third marriages, who have married for reasons of wealth and popularity, one questions why homosexuality is the issue being banned. I am in no way saying those who have gone through divorce are the problem with marriage... rather the speedy and illadvised way in which people rush to marriage is, as many of these marriages end poorly. In addition the third and fourth marriage lowers the status of marriage. In addtion the infidelity among partners in a marriage is high, yet often overlooked. The problem with marriage is not two men wanting to be with each other. Rather it is the "return for a 105% money back guarantee if not satisfied" mentality, the high number of infidelity, and the "everyone's doing it so we need to because we've just graduated" mentality. Thus to call the banning of homosexual unions a defense of marriage is parallel to blaming bicycles for traffic jams.
I wish the homosexuals in our parishes and in the church, in the community and government would all stand up and let themselves known. One would probably be surprised at the vast number there is, and who they are. It will never happen however, at least not in my lifetime, as there is not an air of understanding among the non-homosexuals who are at present the status quo.
I encourage people to not jump to irreversible decisions which exclude anyone. Let time aid us in this age. And may God give us grace to love each other even as we are so divided. May we all admit we do not know all the answers and there is none of us who hear God exclusively. Perception defines our reality, but it is OUR reality, not necessarily what is real. It is when we realize we are not alone but apart of an ever changing, every different community that we will learn to overcome our differences.
Above all I encourage you to pray for continued unity of the Church and country.
Among all this disagreement there are also many among you who are untouched by these issues, who have no opinion, or who are not passionate enough with their opinion to express it. For you it is perhaps the hardest as there are many pressures pushing you to be one way or another. I implore you as a middle ground to call both sides to the altar together to break bread and seek reconciliation.
Yet as the Church deals with this situation, so too is our nation at a point of discernment. Across our states, and in GA specifically, there is an amendment offered which is tantamount to illegalizing the possibility for two committed homosexuals to be united legally. One would be hard pressed to find someone who has not heard of the proposed Amendment to our US Constitution.
I am not one to be political, however I will point out that these amendments are hidden behind the phrase "defense of marriage". The point is to define marriage as union between a man and a woman. The insinuated antithesis, is that it is an offense to marriage, or the oposite of marriage for a man and a man or woman and woman to be so united. If one were to want to truly defend marriage, a similar union being illegalized is not the way. Rather I would suggest re-emphasizing the importance and meaning of such a union, deterring people from rushing into marriage, and dealing with the 1/3 of the marriages which end in divorce would be a more direct way of "defending marriage". When the majority of celebrities, people who are held with esteem among the populous, are in second or third marriages, who have married for reasons of wealth and popularity, one questions why homosexuality is the issue being banned. I am in no way saying those who have gone through divorce are the problem with marriage... rather the speedy and illadvised way in which people rush to marriage is, as many of these marriages end poorly. In addition the third and fourth marriage lowers the status of marriage. In addtion the infidelity among partners in a marriage is high, yet often overlooked. The problem with marriage is not two men wanting to be with each other. Rather it is the "return for a 105% money back guarantee if not satisfied" mentality, the high number of infidelity, and the "everyone's doing it so we need to because we've just graduated" mentality. Thus to call the banning of homosexual unions a defense of marriage is parallel to blaming bicycles for traffic jams.
I wish the homosexuals in our parishes and in the church, in the community and government would all stand up and let themselves known. One would probably be surprised at the vast number there is, and who they are. It will never happen however, at least not in my lifetime, as there is not an air of understanding among the non-homosexuals who are at present the status quo.
I encourage people to not jump to irreversible decisions which exclude anyone. Let time aid us in this age. And may God give us grace to love each other even as we are so divided. May we all admit we do not know all the answers and there is none of us who hear God exclusively. Perception defines our reality, but it is OUR reality, not necessarily what is real. It is when we realize we are not alone but apart of an ever changing, every different community that we will learn to overcome our differences.
Above all I encourage you to pray for continued unity of the Church and country.
Posts
1 comment:
(October 19, 2004 10:22 PM - Transcribed from Old Blog)
Hi James, Just me checking in with you so you will know I'm here..Making a copy to put on the board in the hall at Church. I enjoy your commments on the happenings in the Church. It's very interesting. Also,I realize how long it's been since I've had an opportunity to have a real conversation with you and how much I miss that. Good luck to you and I hope you do real well in your classes. Keep up your interesting entrys in your journal. Kit Rowe
Post a Comment