Or maybe it is just nerds like us…

The intentionality and patterns of liturgy remind me that liturgy is ultimately about God not me. They ask of me obedience. This type of liturgy calls me from individualism to personhood, from spectator to participant, from entertainment to transformation. Our life then becomes liturgy and we can then live as worshiping beings, what Fr. Schmemann calls “homo adorans.”

Peace, Mike+

There’s also an online Advent retreat via blog at http://deepeningfriendship.loyolapress.com/.

Thank you for your list, and for the opportunity to share a few links.

+Jesus-Manuel

Very interesting post, as I have wondered about this issue in my own ministry. It seems to me though that you are assuming that sacramental authority for local pastors is derived from the Discipline, but I have been under the impression that it is derived from the authority of the bishop. If that were true, would it not stand to reason that the bishop (and by extension the DS) would be perfectly able to "expand" that provisional authority beyond the local charge for the purpose of allowing the local pastor to celebrate sacraments in other places?

Now that whole theory seems crazy to me to begin with – having lay people consecrate "under the authority of the bishop." I've thought about this a while and I think that if the church could simply develope some sort of mechanism for "honorable discharge" from ordained ministry this would solve several problems at once:

We could ordain our new pastors right out of seminary and there would be no ambiguity about their status. We could still have a 3-year provisional membership in the conference that could include extra-close oversight (as is currently the case) and could be ended at any time by "honorable discharge."

This mechanism would also provide a way to amicably get rid of clergy who are not competent to this call, that have perhaps been passed around from one church to another for years, doing damage across the conference.

Finally, it would also shorten the ordination service's length since there would be no need to "comission" the new elders and deacons AND ordain those who are finishing the provisional process at the same Annual Conference. We could ordain the new folks at the ordination service and then have some seperate "graduation to full membership" party for the 3-year people.

This would leave unresolved the issue of local pastors however. I will have to think on that one longer. We run the risk (and indeed may already be there to some extent) of developing two differnt kinds of United Methodism – ordained elder churches with seminary-educated sacramental leadership and all the contours that will come with that; and local pastor churches with a non-sacramental leadership with a different sort of education and style all their own.

You're right to suggest that sexuality and spirituality cannot be divorced. But is that really what is going on here?

I read this article the other day when you posted it to Twitter. As with all areas of our lives, I believe we must discipline ourselves in our sexual behavior. I think Rev. Haffner is suggesting a restructuring of sexual mores, not a release from inherited strictures. And I believe that her assertions are theological, or spiritual, rooted in her beliefs about who we are as human beings, who God is (or, the source of that which is spiritual since UU persons do not necessarily believe in a god or gods), and how then we should live.

I disagree with Haffner's account, not because it divorces the sexual from the spiritual, but because it relates the sexual to the spiritual in a way that I think is idolatrous. Whereas the ancients made it clear that certain acts of sexual gratification were done in devotion to false gods, we do not. We would rather deceive ourselves, saying that if we do not satisfy our desires, then we will ultimately live unhappy lives, or, at worst, act on those desires in shameful or disgraceful ways.

If you reread Haffner's article, you will find that the Religious Institute's proposed sexual ethic places human gratification in sexual relationships as the highest value. As long as we are consensual, non-exploitive, honest, etc., there is no problem. This sounds like a spirituality of centered on the self, rather than on a transcendent Other.

I disagree with Haffner, but in terms different than those you have chosen. The God Christians confess has taken a bit more of an interest in our sexual lives, and whether the fulfillment of our sexual desires should or should not be in covenanted relationships. My sexual choices are derived from my relationship with my Creator, not simply with what makes me happy. And guidelines for those choices have been given in Scripture and taught by the Church, and amount to much more than my personal gratification, which, ultimately, is to God's glory.