Just a quick post to see if everyone is still alive or if finals have defeated you once and for all. I hope everyone is hanging in there. Just a few more days left. Then we get to start preparing for our summer classes. Yeah!

For the non-seminarians among us...my bet is this blog will be rather quiet for the next week. Do not give up on us. We are finishing up a semester and will be back in full force next week. Keep on checking in and we will see you then.

Theologian Guy and I found this headline in Walmart the other day. I don't know about you, but I am sure excited of the possibilities abounding for the Catholic Church.

(courtesy of Weekly World News, American's most trusted news source, the second-most unbiased news source under FoxNews.)

Pope John Paul II is reportedly poised to announce his handpicked successor: Hollywood hunk Mel Gibson!

Key quotes in the article from a "Vatican Insider" speaking of the pope:

"In his view, Mel -- a robustly heterosexual father of six and a quintessential man's man -- is exactly what's needed to restore the image of the priesthood."

"The pope is impressed and grateful. He calls Gibson 'Miracle Mel.' He told us, 'Miracle Mel is a lethal weapon against Satan.'"

Read the rest of the article at Yahoo! News. WWN's website doesn't include the whole article.

Several of you know that I spent this weekend in Kansas for a job interview working with a college ministry. As one would expect, the weekend was full of meetings and questions. One evening (we were at a cookout for all of the local campus ministries) some of the students thought they'd have their shot at questions, they gathered around the picnic table, stared intently at me and ask: 'If you were alone on a deserted island straving and there was a muffin that had legs and ran around, would you eat it?' let's just say I've never had an interview question like that before. (By the way I said absolutely. 'Even if you had to catch it?' Yes, even if I had to chase it.)

I was originally going to include this in a comment of a previous post but I thought I'd start another fire by placing it as a main entry.

______________________


We are talking a lot about sin. Is sin individual actions comitted by people, or is sin a state, devoid of grace? It seems to me, but I have heard others saying it (I am not just pulling it out of my epistemic butt), that, for Paul at least, sin is more of a state of being rather than individual actions. We WERE sinners, but NOW we are saved by grace. We WERE under the law, but NOW we are under grace. Christians are no longer sinners, but grace-saved people. Or, to put it in another way, we are no longer headed away from Jesus, but toward Jesus.

Understanding sin as a state of being changes the way we look at salvation. Are we saved because we are Christians who don't "commit sins" anymore? Or are we saved because we no longer are living according to the sinful nature? Sure, Christians "sin". Christians at times live in ways contrary to the kingdom of God. But when we engage in acts contray to the will of God as Christians we are not living in a sinful state as we were before we repented (changed direction) and pointed toward Christ.

As Christians, then, we find our security, not by our ability to avoid wrong doing, but by the direction we are pointing. This does not, as you may be fearing, lead to relativism. "Well, I can do whatever I want because I am 'headed' towards Jesus." I think it is a given that someone who has set their focus on Jesus will strive in all that they can to live a life that compliments their life-direction. If not, you've got some serious conflicts going on.

So, to make this ranting practical. In the issue of being gay and being Christian, if (and I am not saying this is my position, though I am not saying its not either) you say being gay is a sin--could not a person, set on following Jesus, who does not equate being gay and being sinful, still be facing the right direction? I have known gay Christians, the "Ousted One" especially, who have exemplified a tremendous desire to follow Christ. They are living their life trying to draw closer and closer to the Lord they follow. If being gay is a sin (or if living the gay lifestyle in a committed, monagmous relationship is sin) would one sin, one Biblical misinterpretation, keep them from entering into the kingdom of God? Are they not, still, saved by grace? Or do we hold gay Christians to a standard of perfection, while we do nothing of the like for other Christians (except maybe the divorcee). Just some food for thought.

Mouse has two mommies. Finally, women no longer need men to reproduce, well at least female mice...for now!  The plan is coming into place so to rid the world of men, Muuuaaaaahhhhh!

I really don't want to get rid of men, they are great, even though I don't have a man.  But, this just another interesting issue that is going to be dealt with.  How do we respond, should we respond.  Thoughts and insights please, I can't wait.

Wow! Just one whole month has gone by since we began this little blog. Today marks the luniversary (from "luna" meaning month) of our blog, which was started March 21, 2004. And as of the time of this posting, we have had a little over 2,500 visits to our blog! Way to go, my fellow blog-authors. Thanks to all the friends and guests who have made this blog, in my mind, successful. Cheers!

I know, I know, another post on gay marriage. You're probably getting sick of this. Heretofore, I have not weighed in on this issue very heavily. I thought I would make a contribution to the discussion by starting another thread in order not to disrupt the momentum of the other threads.

When it comes to defining marriage, I think that the Catholics are on to something by emphasizing the procreative and unitive functions. Meaning, there's something to a marriage that both cultivates unity of flesh and the upbringing of a new generation. In an ideal situation, I think we can then point to the traditional one male, one female, for life, with the expectation that the two becoming one flesh will result in fostering a new generation, and the growth of God's kingdom.

But, the world is hardly ever ideal, and neither are the people you find in church. One of the big problems in our world is the large numbers of children without families. Whether or not a couple can produce their own offspring, there are children in need of parents in the world. And adoption, I would argue, is of grave ethical importance and in need of much consideration by Christian couples, especially in our American society.

So let's think about this--since the raising of children does, and in many cases should, take place without the couple raising them having also birthed them, it makes us stop to re-think the procreative aspects of marriage.

If the procreative can, in our context, be understood as the raising of children, and not simply the biological production of them, then perhaps the unitive aspect of marriage should be re-thought in terms not only of sex and its connection to procreation, but according to loving relationships.

Sex is unitive and procreative. But marriage needn't be definitively equated with sex. Marriage is more than intercourse. It's a relationship. And as such, a marriage may fulfill the unitive and procreative aspects in the kingdom of God in ways traditionally regarded taboo, because the basis is not simply a biological function. The basis is on one of the soul (not to be understood as Neo-Platonic body-soul dualism, I mean by "soul" the integrative aspect which forms the basis and core of an holistic understanding of the human person), and therefore affective and relational.

Does this make sense? Comments welcome!

Would someone start a thread in the main section based on Travis' statement from this discussion?

The one that goes:

Even if that person believes that their homosexual, monogamous relationship is acceptable to God, and they continue to live out this lifestyle in a life-long relationship, I would say that they are still Christian.

I think this would be a great topic for our dissection and reflection and obfuscation.

-Have at it
- the cheese

I thought that might get your attention. In following up my last entry, I want to affirm (feel free to completely disagree) two sites that are linked on this site. These two pastors have ventured into the multi-billion dollar porn world - not to produce but to minster. Not to preach but to be relational. They have even paired up with a porn producer (he came to them and offerred to make the commerical for free) to produce a PSA on keeping porn away from kids.

Here's another one that's slightly less edgy - Relevant Magazine and its online site. It takes a no-holds-barred approach in reaching and communicating with the 20-something crowd.

Both of these groups have taken great risks to go into territories that mainstream christianity has stood far away and shook their heads at. One sets up booths at porn conventions and the other allows people to be real and ask real questions without preprescribed answers.

Just after bashing I thought I'd do some affirming.

-the Cheese

I know, I know. I already posted earlier today, and as of the writing of this post, I have had no takers. I guess it is the weekend. Not to worry, I'm sure the fish will bite....err, I mean, people will respond in the comments.

But anyways, I found this slightly humorous. Here is a couple of heterosexual males who have found an interesting way to protest gay marriage. I guess if Divine Foreknowledge isn't controversial enough for you, maybe you'd like to rant/rave/discuss the issues surrounding marriage. I think the photo is pretty funny, and interestingly thoughtful.

(Link via my friend Cherry)