Re: Viewpoint article " Straight or Gay" by Rev. Hal Porter

Dear Editor:

What a strange "commentary" on a biblical passage by one supposedly having the education to be ordained a Minster of Word and Sacrament in
our Church. Where is the explication of the meaning of the quoted text? Where is the exegesis? Where is the biblical or historical support for the theses? To quote an old commercial, "Where's the beef?"

Let me try a little of my own.

Jesus makes this statement as he overlooks Jerusalem preparatory to his "victorious" entrance on Palm Sunday. Why such melancholy? Because He
knows that his apparent "victory" with the inhabitants of the Holy city will be short-lived. He knows that Jerusalem will not live up to the hopes and plans God has for it, but will succumb to its earthly desires. His words are words of great love, but also terrible words of sadness and disappointment that the beloved will once again rebel against the teachings of its loving parent and thus cut itself off from the rich inheritance waiting for it. For he knows that Jerusalem -- and by extension the Jewish people -- will not give up their earthly sin and follow the rules for righteous living given them by God and shown them by His on. That is why this passage is followed by "Jesus wept."

The scholars and Pharisees had "shut the door" by over-analysis of scripture, leading to an insistence on form over substance, thus needlessly and uselessly expanding the "rules" laid down by God. Jesus never condemns the existence of rules, nor does he say the rules no longer apply. When challenged on this point, he first reaffirms the acknowledged God-given rules by saying the greatest commandment is "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind." Loving God with heart, soul and mind requires not only feeling good about God, but following His teachings and commandments. Jesus adds, "And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets." Again, this passage affirms the "rules" then acknowledged as being from God.

Good parents do give their children unconditional love throughout their lives, as mine have. Yet, when I violated my parents rules and expectations of me, their love was not shown by allowing me to get away with breaking the rules, but by their loving application of (non-corporal) punishment. If my son had grown up a rebellious child who ignored all I taught him about living a decent life and had become a career criminal, I would not have stopped loving him, but I also wouldn't have tried to keep him out of jail. I too would have wept.

That is the position that Porter seems unable to comprehend. That there are those who can love another who is committing rebellious sin. We do not need to accept the sin to continue our love. That is the real import behind the first passage Porter quotes. Jesus still desires to "gather your children as a hen gathers her chicks," but because of the Jews' continual and continuing sinfulness "you wouldn't let me."