Reasons to Rejoice

What are you grateful for tonight? I'm grateful that our chinchilla is well, that I have a new car coming, and that I am finally online with my cable modem from home. Oh yes, and I am running again, healed from that loathsome and tenacious respiratory infection.

There are other reasons to rejoice: XRLQ and wife are to have a baby boy; send your congrats to the erascible and erudite unpronounceable one.

The Cal Golden Bears softball team is in the semifinals of the College World Series; I caught a bit of the game today.

In my post on confirmands at All Saints, I mentioned that Bishop Jon Bruno of Los Angeles was planning to perform his first same-sex blessing since becoming bishop on May 16. It happened as planned; here is the account.

Bishop Bruno invited Malcolm and Mark to stand in full view of family and friends to declare their covenant to one another : promises to live together in love, to be faithful to one another, to support one another so that they might grow into maturity of faith in Jesus Christ and to do all in their power to make their life together a witness to the love of God in the world.

The bishop then instructed the couple to clasp each other’s hand so that he could wrap them with a beige silk scarf presented by Mark’s brother, John, and painted by Malcolm’s mother, Beatrice, half a century ago. The bishop pointed out the painted image on the scarf – a flock of cranes – and noted it symbolized good health, prosperity and the uniting of two families. After tying the scarf in a knot around their hands, Malcolm and Mark took turns pledging their love for one another.

The invited guests prayed for the couple and gave their promises to celebrate with them and stand by them in times of trouble and distress. Then, all, many with tears of joy in their eyes, raised their hands and joined the bishop in the blessing the union of these two loving and gracious men. How could they not?

Not all are rejoicing. Kendall Harmon is concerned as to definitions:

Sure sounds like a wedding to me. But it isn’t one we are told. No legal implications either. So we are clear on what it is not (or are we really?) What is it then? Can you do something this significant without even an agreed upon term for what it actually is? Without any meaningful development of a basically coherent theology for it?

Well, liberals are very clear on what we think it should be: a wedding. A wedding legally, spiritually, and theologically indistinguishable from a heterosexual wedding. The problem for me, as a liberal with deeply evangelical impulses, is that most of the best theology is on the other side. Liberal theologians end up using Enlightenment rhetoric about liberty and rights as often as they cite Scripture. The left has completely captured my heart. Unfortunately, the right has my head. Yet as a complete and utter ENFJ, I'm going to put my heart first. As my second-favorite poet, Auden said:

and always, though truth and love
can never really differ, when they seem to,
the subaltern should be truth.

Comments

[Col Steve]

Hugo - Having the good fortune to ride with some WWII Veterans on the DC Metro today (in advance of the WWII memorial dedication), I'm grateful for that generation of Americans (and some other nations' citizens also) to whom I believe we owe a profound debt of gratitude.

[Hugo]

Indeed. Even the pacifist within me can respect the sacrifices of that generation; I would only note that the thousands of Mennonites who worked in alternative service (in some cases, losing their lives fighting fires, for example) are equally worthy of honor and gratitude.

[Joy Paul]

Thanks for putting your heart in the right place! :)

[John]

I wonder if you saw Fr. Neuhaus's comment:
"It all sounds so good-No one is excluded, but everyone, (conservative and liberal, apostate and orthodox) can gather together around the Table. Except of course those who thought the point was to gather together in Truth".

[John]

I wonder if you saw Fr. Neuhaus's comment:
"It all sounds so good-No one is excluded, but everyone, (conservative and liberal, apostate and orthodox) can gather together around the Table. Except of course those who thought the point was to gather together in Truth".

[candace]

Love you Hugo (I'm an ENFJ too!) but John's comment pretty much says it for me. For me, Christ and Christianity were/are 100% inclusive of people. But I see nowhere where it or He are or were inclusive of counterscriptural social ideas.

Not that this is the appropriate format for the age-old debate, but I see love that's not in truth as something not lasting, or at least not as worth having.

[John]

Amen. C S Lewis said that love without Truth ends up being very cruel.

[Hugo]

I'm with both of you -- I'm just not convicted that homosexuality is, in practice, antithetical to truth. Or maybe I just try damned hard to have it both ways.

[Xrlq]

Thanks for the link. The timing was perfect, as Mrs. Xrlq's pregnancy has not been easy. Baby Xrlq is fine, which is all that will matter in the long run.