Yeago on the claim that disagreement over the morality of this or that is not church-dividing, cannot be permitted to have an impact on "church-fellowship"

"Amidst the ethical turmoil of the denominations, voices are continually heard insisting that if we agree about Christ, other disagreements are not decisive. . . .
But "we cannot agree about Christ if we disagree about substantial matters of moral teaching.  To suppose that we can implies serious misconceptions about Christ. . . . agreement about Christ cannot be only doctrinal. . . . the relationship between Jesus Christ and the law of God is such that we cannot agree in teaching about Christ if we disagree substantially about the law. . . .
"disputes about divine law involve, in the end, disputes about Jesus Christ, and therefore disputes about the gospel. . . ."

     David Yeago, "Grace and the good life:  why the God of the gospel cares how we live," in The morally divided body:  ethical disagreement and the disunity of the church, ed. Michael Root and James J. Buckley, The Pro ecclesia series 1 (Eugene, OR:  Cascade Books, 2012), 77-79 (77-92).
     Many "claim that Christians have a unity 'in Christ' or 'in the gospel' that is somehow impervious even to very substantial disagreement about moral questions.  I am speaking here not of the deep ontological unity founded by baptism, but about the concord in faith and teaching that is necessary for church-fellowship" (77).
     "The knowledge of Jesus Christ is therefore not only what we might call doctrinal knowledge, but is inherently also knowledge of a way that Christians are summoned and privileged to walk, recognition of the good kind of life that we receive from Jesus Christ" (89-90).

     Robert W. Jenson, in "Can ethical disagreement divide the church?" (Ibid., pp. 1-11):

"That matters of ethics have in fact divided the church, and that such divisions have in fact often been taken as holding at the same level as divisions caused by doctrine [(p. 2)], is a matter of open record. . . .
     "For a more recent case, one may instance the Lutheran World Federation's break of fellowship with the white Lutheran churches of South Africa, on account of their practice of apartheid.  The action was widely applauded at the time—including by some who now call for living together in spite of almost anything.  The Lutheran churches trotted out the heavy artillery, status confessionis:  tolerating apartheid was held to contradict the church's confession of faith" (p. 3).

That took place at the Sixth Assembly of the Lutheran World Federation, 13-25 June 1977, Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania.  At the Seventh, 22 July-5 August 1984 in Budapest, the membership of two South African churches, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Southern Cape Province and the German Evangelical Lutheran Church in Namibia, was suspended.

     This is not the Lutheran document mentioned by Jenson, but it, too, insists that ethical disagreement can be church-dividing.
     Cf. Pannenberg, Abraham, Radner, and others on this blog.
     Christoph Raedel, "Christliche Identität und neue Schöpfung:  Das Evangelium von der Rechtfertigung des Gottlosen als Zentrum der kirchlichen Homosexualitätdiskussion," European journal of theology 24, no. 2 (2015):  187:

By contrast [(jedoch)], the apostle of the doctrine of justification [i.e.] Paul describes ethics and the conduct of life not as a sphere categorically detached from the freedom attained in faith, but, as Udo Schnelle expresses it, the 'behavioral dimension [(Handlungsdimension)] of participation in Christ'.  The life of the Christian in the earthly body is life as [a] member of the Body of Christ, [and] therefore a life in correspondence to the new being in Jesus Christ.

"rewarded with rigor"

Edmund Campion.
Line engraving after unknown artist.
Published on 1 Dec 1819 by T & H. Rodd.
National Portrait Gallery, London, D2158.

"If these my offers be refused and my endeuoure can take no place and I hauing come thousandes of myles to do you good shall be rewarded with rigor: I haue no more to say but recommēd your cause to almighty god the searcher of all harts who send vs of his grace and set vs all at concord before the day of payment to the end at the last we may be friends in Heauen where all iniuries shalbe forgotten."

     Edmund Campion's brag 9, as reproduced in The great bragge and challenge of M. Champion a Iesuite, . . . co[n]futed & aunswered by Meredith Hanmer (London:  Thomas Marsh, 1581), as scanned into Early English Books Online.  This was one of the only two places in which it was ever published.  It was also the first.  According to the OED, by the early 15th century "rigor" meant (in addition to the "application or enforcement" of the "rigour", "full extent", or "strict enforcement" of the law) "cruelty" (Campion was hanged, drawn, and quartered).  But it also meant "hardness of heart" (a sort of rigor cordis, as it were).  I have changed only the esses (from non-final to final).  Was it written in English originally?  Does it exist in manuscript?  Note that it differs from the version offered by Evelyn Waugh

"If these my offers be refused, and my endeavours can take no place, and I, having run thousands of miles to do you good, shall be rewarded with rigour, I have no more to say but to recommend your case and mine to Almightie God, the Searcher of Hearts, who send us His grace, and set us at accord before the day of payment, to the end we may at last be friends in Heaven, when all injuries shall be forgotten."

the version offered by Richard Simpson, according to McCoog in the Oxford encyclopedia of the Reformation still Campion's best (if "Historiographically dated") biographer:

"If these my offers be refused, and my endeavours can take no place, and I, having run thousands of miles to do you good, shall be rewarded with rigour,—I have no more to say, but to recommend your case and mine to Almighty God, the Searcher of hearts, who send us of His grace, and set us at accord before the day of payment, to the intent we may at last be friends in heaven, where all injuries shall be forgotten."

and the version offered by J. H. Pollen, as reproduced in Appendix B (p. 181 (179-181)) of James V. Holleran, A Jesuit challenge:  Edmund Campion's debates at the Tower of London in 1581 (New York:  Fordham University Press, 1999):

"If these my offers be refused, and my endeavours can take no place, and I, having run thousands of miles to do you good, shall be rewarded with rigour, I have no more to say but to recommend your case and mine to Almighty God, the Searcher of Hearts, who send us of His grace, and set us at accord before the day of payment, to the end we may at last be friends in heaven, when all injuries shall be forgotten."

The Hanmer version of 1581, only very slightly modernized:

"If these my offers be refused and my endevoure can take no place and I having come thousandes of myles to do you good shall be rewarded with rigor: I have no more to say but recommēd your cause to almighty god the searcher of all harts who send us of his grace and set us all at concord before the day of payment to the end at the last we may be friends in Heaven where all iniuries shalbe forgotten."

What I longed for, I now see; what I hoped for, I now possess; in heaven I am espoused to him whom on earth I loved with all my heart.

Ecce quod concupivi, iam video; quod speravi, iam teneo: ipsi sum iuncta in cælo, quem in terris posita, tota devotione dilexi.

Lo, what I desired I now do see; what I did hope for I now possess; now am I united in heaven to him whom I loved with my whole heart upon earth.

     Antiphon assigned to the Benedictus, Morning prayer (Lauds), Feast of St. Agnes (21 January).  Translation no. 1 from Christian prayer:  the Liturgy of the hours (1976), 1067; translation no. 2 from The Anglican breviary (1998 [1955]), E58 =1078.  "ipsi sum iuncta in cælo, quem in terris posita, tota devotione dilexi" echoes PL 17, col. 820A:  "illi sum juncta in coelis, quem in terris posita tota devotione dilexi."  Cf. Acta sanctorum at 21 January (January II, pp. 714 ff.), which I haven't yet examined.  For some lovely manuscripts inclusive of this antiphon, including one from the 10th century, see the relevant entry in CANTUS.

Not all of the lovely ones are ancient

3rd edition:

Nourished with these sacred gifts,

we humbly entreat your mercy, O Lord,

that, faithfully listening to your Only Begotten Son,

we may be your children in name and in truth.

2nd edition:

Lord, you feed us with bread from heaven.  May we hear your Son with faith and become your children in name and in fact.

Latin:

Sacro munere satiati,

clementiam tuam, Domine, suppliciter exoramus,

ut, Unigenitum tuum fideliter audientes,

filii tui vere nominemur et simus.

Perisho (wooden):
Satiated by the sacred gift,

your clemency, O Lord, we humbly entreat,
that, your Only-Begotten faithfully hearing,
your sons we may truly be called and be.

     Prayer after Communion, Feast of the Baptism of the Lord.  Newly composed for the Missale Romanum of 1975 on the basis of Mt 17:5 (ipsum audite, hear him) and 1 Jn 3:1 (ut filii Dei nominemur et sumus, that we should be called children of God; and such we are).  Cuthbert Johnson, OSB, and Anthony Ward, SM, The sources of the Roman missal (1975), I:  Advent, Christmas no. 136 ((Rome:  Notitiae 240-242, July-September 1986), pp. [239]/679-[241]/681).  "suppliciter exoramus" could mean also "we humbly by entreaty obtain".
     The Collect in the 1979 Book of common prayer, also a new composition, was based not on this Prayer after Communion, but on the first of the two Roman Collects of the day (and highly modified).  Marion J. Hatchett, Commentary on the American prayer book (New York:  The Seabury Press, 1980), 171.

The next time I'm tempted to correct someone who says "Revelations" instead of "Revelation,"...

. . . I'll remember that John Henry Newman was among the many who used the plural.  Cf.

     Oxford English dictionary, sv revelation, n., 2.c.i-ii, "In plural in sense 2a, now regarded as informal and by some as incorrect," from c. 1400 and following.

"'God created Adam master and lord of (all) living creatures, but Eve spoilt all'".

     Martin Luther, Table talk, as translated by William Hazlitt, who began with the 1566 Colloquia oder Tischreden of Johannes Aurifaber, but supplemented that with the editions of others.
     Alternatively,

God created Adam master and lord of (all) living creatures, but Eve spoiled it all, or 

God created Adam lord of (all) living creatures, but Eve spoiled it all, etc.

     But that is not what Luther said precisely (WA TR 2847b (WA TR 3, 26)).  What he said was,

Deus fecit Adam dominum omnium creatorum, ut dominaretur omnibus animantibus, sed cum Eua persuaderet, ut esset dominus supra Deum, do verterbet ers.

Or, as translated on p. 197 of Luther on women: a sourcebook,

God made Adam the lord of all creatures so that he might rule all living things.  But when Eve persuaded him that he was a lord above God, he thereby spoiled it all.

     Granted, he continues, "'We have that to thank you women for'", etc.  But the translation by Hazlitt does not match the text as reproduced later in the Weimarer Ausgabe, which sports "ers", not "Eua".

Do not our hearts burn within us?

"Describe your conversion to Christ.
"One night the only food my wife and I had was a small portion of macaroni.  My wife prepared it very nicely.  Then one of her friends knocked on the door.  I told myself, The macaroni is not sufficient for even the two of us, so how will it be enough for three of us?  But because we have no other custom, we opened the door, and she came in to eat with us.
     "While we were eating, the macaroni started to multiply; it became full in the bowl.  I suspected that something was wrong with my eyes, so I started rubbing them.  I thought maybe my wife hid some macaroni under the small table, so I checked, but there was nothing.  My wife and I looked at each other, but because the guest was there we said nothing.
     "Afterward I lay down on the bed, and as I slept, Isa came to me and asked me, 'Do you know who multiplied the macaroni?'  I said, 'I don't know.'  He said, 'I am Isa al Masih.  If you follow me, not only the macaroni but your life will be multiplied.'
     "He didn't tell me that he was God; he didn't tell me that he died on behalf of me; he didn't say, 'I am the Son of God.'  He didn't talk to me about any complicated theological issues.  He only told me that if I followed him, he would multiply my life.  At that time, I was very happy if he only multiplied the macaroni like he did that day.  I didn't understand what he meant when he said that my life would be multiplied.  Now I understand what that means.  But at the time, I accepted him simply as the 'lord of macaroni.'

"Much like the crowds in the Gospels who accepted him as 'lord of bread.'
"Yes, I just accepted him as one who satisfied my needs.  That day I understood that because Allah loved me, Isa came to my home.
     "When I think back now, the kingdom of God came to my home.  Jesus said, '[I]f I cast out demons . . . the kingdom . . . has come upon you' (Luke 11:20, nasb).  Any miracle that takes place by Isa al Masih speaks of the kingdom of God.  It was not because I was poor that Isa came to my home; there are many poor.  It is not because he wanted to multiply my macaroni.  Maybe there might be many other people who can multiply macaroni, like magic.  So what is the purpose?  Isa al Masih came to my home with the kingdom of God.  He didn't completely explain theological issues, he only said, 'If you will follow.'"

     "Abu Jaz," as interviewed by "Gene Daniels," "a missionary in the Muslim community".  "What it's like to follow Christ embedded in Muslim culture:  an interview with a Muslim follower of Isa," a component of "Worshiping Jesus in the mosque"/"Where's Christian?", itself a component of a suite of short pieces on "The hidden history of insider movements," Christianity today 57, no. 1 (January/February 2013):  23-24/27/31).