[Matt Algren]

Originally Posted by lda

Hi-Just wanted to insert a comment about the definition of reconciling and the statement of bringing All God's children home.

Hi Ida, I'll be dissecting your post today. Fellow Methodist here, so I have a horse in the race.

First, inclusion is more synonomous with tolerance-Not reconciliation. When I tolerate someone who anoys me, or whom I don't agree with, it is not fellowship, and it is not love. God's love is not one of mere tolerance-he doesn't want opposing belief systems to coexist in His house, He has one word and One system of Faith in our One Messiah and Lord-Jesus the Christ. To reconcile requires a working through differences to reach a destination of commonality-In the bible, being reconciliation is restoring fellowship with God through His truth, which requires a removal of whatever caused the relationship to be broken in the first place-Sin. To include is to allow all parties equal privy-While this concept works in democracy, it doesn't work in the church's theocracy.

Speaking to the first sentence first, I don't really agree with you. Assuming that you meant characteristic instead of synonymous (something can either be synonymous or not synonymous, there are no gradients), one definition of the word reconciliation is "restoration to harmony; renewal of friendship". That's one of the major goals of the RMN. For 36 years there has been disharmony, and they/we are trying to restore the proper and glorious harmonic created when all God's people are welcomed and valued and loved. One method of achieving that goal is to be purposefully inclusive; to recognize that there has been a deficit in the past and to make specific and visible steps toward fixing the relationship.

Tolerance, though, is also an important tool. It's not prime, but it's a place to start. Methodists are strange ducks, in that we tend to be okay with disagreeing on lots of stuff (alcohol, divorce, gambling, war, women at the pulpit, the list goes on) as long as we DO agree on the most basic (God rules, Jesus reconciles us to God, the Spirit dwells within and sustains us). Heck, I've known Methodists who question the virgin birth.

But on Sunday morning, we put our differences aside, focus on that which we have in common, and sit in the pews and worship. Homosexuality is one of (I can't think of another one, but I'm sure I'm wrong) the only non-primal issues that some Methodists dig their heels in and refuse to debate or even converse. Asking for tolerance is a way to get people to put their feelings aside and come together as fellows to get to the heart of the issue.

Like I said, it isn't the way things ought to be, but for now it's an important tool.

We are all God's creation-We are not all God's children. We don't become children of God until we are born of God-by being Born of the Water and Spirit. This only comes through faith and true repentance (John 3 & Acts 2:38) True Children of God don't need to be reconciled to him-We were reconciled through New Birth.

You've misunderstood the goal of RMN. We're not talking about reconciliation with God. that's already been settled. What we're looking for is reconciliation with our brothers and sisters who would keep us out of God's house.

I'd also add that I disagree with your creation/children statement. I know it's a common phrase, but it's horribly exclusive, and needlessly so. One thing we know about Jesus: He was not exclusive in his teachings, in his company, or in his aid to people in need. To use such language as "We are not all god's children" is to place ourselves at the front row in the synagogue.

Kelli, keep 'em coming! (And happy birthday!)