jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com (06/27/90)
The remarks on homosexual marriage ceremonies have no basis in reality. The Irish penitentials of the 9th century or so prescribe a several year bread and water fast for someone who confesses to the sin involved here. The far older Levitical law prescribed death. Joe Buehler [I have asked the original author for his evidence. Note however that he claimed to be describing a relatively early practice, which he agreed died out. So Irish penitentials of the 9th Cent. don't necessarily show that such a practice could never have existed in the Church. But I'll be interested to see the evidence. ... --clh]
bralick@bree.endor.cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) (06/27/90)
In response to a note from Mr. Goodenough our moderator writes: | The Reformers certainly did not believe that the | Church was a separate source of authority. It was called into being | by Scripture and was a reflection of Scripture. If this is accurate, then it seems to me that the Reformers were clearly mistaken. The Church was not "called into being by Scripture;" Scripture _recorded_ the calling of the Church into being by Christ. (As recorded in Matt 16.17-20, Matt 18.18, Matt 28.19-20, Mark 16.15, John 17.18, etc.) | The fact that it is totally dependent does not mean that it ceases to exist. ~~~~ Perhaps you meant "assumption" rather than "fact." But didn't the Church antedate the New Testament? Clearly, Christ called the apostles and began His ministry before the New Testament existed. Similarly, after the Ascension, the New Testament was not yet written, how could the Church exist if Scripture had not yet called it into being? How can the New Testament which didn't exist for some decades somehow provide authority to an institution which preceeded it? | However if one sees the Church as an independent source of authority, | then the Reformers certainly were opposed to that kind of Church. The technology existed in ~30 A.D. to preserve documents. Why didn't Christ write everything down Himself? Why did He rely on humans to transmit His teaching? IMHO it appears that He established an _instution_ independent of and antecedent to any documentation. Best regards, -- Will | bralick@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu | ...in partibus infidelium... bralick@gondor.cs.psu.edu | with disclaimer; use disclaimer; | [It may be that I got carried away somewhat in my wording. In fact the earliest Protestant confessional document I have access to, the Ten Conclusions of Berne (1528), says something similar: "The holy Christian Church, whose only Head is Christ, is born of the Word of God, and abides in the same, and listens not to the voice of a stranger." However my statement leaves too much context understood for use in contexts where misunderstanding is likely. Let me try to say things more carefully. Protestant doctrine agrees that the Church was instituted by Christ. Although it has many purposes and responsibilities, the major ones are usually identified as preaching the Gospel and celebrating the sacraments. However I believe my comment that the Church is subordinate to Scripture reflects usual Protestant belief. Obviously we are supposed to have a relationship to Christ, both personally as as in institution. He is the head of the Church, and it would be "bibliolatry" to replace him with Scripture. But to a large extent Protestants believe that we encounter him through the Word. The Word of course is not bound to a book. The Word preached has always had an important role, and I believe one can think of the sacraments as being the Word acted out. Yet the written Word is normative, because it's the one objective thing we can use as a standard to judge the rest of the activity of the Church. I do not believe this contradicts the historical situation of the early Church. For them much of the Word was present in oral form, though of course the OT was available in writing. I think Protestants would regard Scripture as identical in content -- though certainly not precisely in form -- with the early preaching of the Church. The experience of the Reformation, and also the various disagreements among Protestants, have left us with a strong feeling that some objective standard is required. As the Prophets judged the nation of Israel, admonishing it when it diverged from God's purposes, the Church needs something to play the same role. For us this is Scripture, or rather God speaking to us through Scripture. I would say that I reject the concept that the Church itself can be seen as a source of authority equivalent to that of Scripture for two reasons: (1) both experience and theory suggest that it is unrealistic to expect the Church to judge itself. Of course the Church is not left alone -- God works through it. But experience suggests that some objective standard is needed to discern God's work, and Scripture is it. (2) Scripture reports specific actions of God in history that have a special status. God does of course continue to act in history. But Christ's life, death and resurrection form a key, the understanding of which provides the basis for evaluating all other actions. I hope this clarifies things somewhat. --clh]
mike@turing.cs.unm.edu (Michael I. Bushnell) (07/02/90)
There have been quite a lot of requests for information about the
early homosexual marriages performed by the Church. Work has been
hectic, but I am compiling a list and will post it soon.
-mib
--
Michael I. Bushnell \ This above all; to thine own self be true
LIBERTE, EGALITE, FRATERNITE \ And it must follow, as the night the day,
mike@unmvax.cs.unm.edu /\ Thou canst not be false to any man.
CARPE DIEM / \ Farewell: my blessing season this in thee!