Quote To Be Pondered

Is this a contemporary complaint?  Who is clamoring for a revival of the slave trade?

Otherwise this is typical of a system of belief that cannot withstand the scrutiny of reason.

The problem with making tolerance the center of an ethical (or worse criminal) system is that it never stands on its own. One is not tolerant in iteself, but tolerant of this particular thing or that particular attitude - the term own its own is meaningless (just like that other favourite of or worthy opponents `equality’). This very quote advocates a limited tolerance. Tolerance for murderers, anyone? Or slave owners? After all, one might argue, it is just another way of life. The society which is tolerant of everything is lawless, without principle and chaotic; doomed to collapse.

So the question then becomes what should be tolerated and what should not be tolerated; and obviously the principle of tolerance itself cannot be used to judge that, but some other principle must be invoked, for example whether it is to the benefit of society or an individual. Those who say that or approve of the statement that `any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law,’ are in effect trying to impose their own ethical standard by appealing to a principle which is utterly irrelevant to the matter at hand rather than disclosing their true beliefs and reasons for liking or disliking what they are calling to be tolerated or intolerated; it is, in other words, an attempt to avoid debate on the foundations of the ethical system and how they apply to this particular instance; where those who preach tolerance are usually on far weaker ground. Or perhaps it is just an excuse to cover up woolly thinking and feel smug about it.

I am intolerant of pedophiles, drunk drivers, poorly educated teachers, abusive parents, Elizabeth Kaeton and Susan Russell.  I am sure I am supposed to have tolerance for the last two, but there are many, many, many ahead of them on the list which I will need to work on first.  These 2 were just an extreme example of the type people I have a hard time tolerating.
BB, I esp. appreciate your point, which is that you can’t be “tolerant” in general, just as you can’t be “fair” or “skilled” or “talented” in general.  It just doesn’t make sense as a general attribute.
And I think your last statement sums it up nicely.

Interesting.

Then it would seem that tolerance itself, not everyday tolerance mind you, but true tolerance, gussied up as one of the Platonic Forms that no one can really use anyhow…

That Tolerance, is criminal, on par with incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade. 

Why?

Because, “(w)e should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.”

Ha!  I thought of that too, Moot, but couldn’t think of a way to fisk it so elegantly as you did. 
That’s right:  What about tolerance for the intolerant?

Tolerance which will not tolerate intolerance is not true tolerance.

Intolerance is often found at either end of an argument: left and right, reasserter and revisionist, pro and anti anything.  People who are absolutely certain that they are 100% right may be intolerant but this is not necessarily the case.

The truly tolerant are those who believe what they are committed to, but do not castigate or seek to cast out those who disagree with them.  It is tolerant to continue to explain to them courteously a point of view but not to refuse to listen or to deny a platform to those with whom they disagree.  Tolerance is not a weak thing; it does now require you to be wishy-washy in what you think or believe, but it is all about while strongly advocating your own viewpoint and seeking to influence others, yet accepting others’ right to disagree with you, and indeed defending their right to disagree with you.

All animals are equal, just some are much, much more equal than others.

Isn’t strong advocation of any particular point of view very close to the “preaching of intolerance” which is proscribed by the author as “outside the law”?  Or am I being intolerant?

A statement such as this one is right on par with the following:
“All truth is relative”
Either that statement in itself is relative, and therefore not truthful, or there is some outside truth statement that makes that statement true.  This type of logic falls apart under its own weight.

“I’m sorry, you have to leave.  You can’t be part of the group.”
“Why not?”
“Because we prize tolerance over everything else and you don’t tolerate the same things we do.”

Instead of tolerance, they need to be honest and say that they discriminate against people who don’t think like they do. 

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

I also remember a fantastic quotation from Ravi Zacharias where someone came up to him and said that the Jains (I believe it was the Jains) excluded no one.  His response to them, “yes you do, you exclude the exclusivists!”  Brilliant!

Soooooo….let me see if I have this right. Tolerance is the act of agreeing with the position of the person who is being tolerant, and disagreeing with that person’s point of view is intolerant & criminal…

...wow…

BTW, here are the definitions of “tolerance” that I found on the web:

1.    a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one’s own; freedom from bigotry.
2.    a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one’s own.
3.    interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one’s own; a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint.

Someone PLEASE explain to me how the author of the passage above is “tolerant” in ANY way, shape, or form…

Live free or die…

Revelation 2:20 (New International Version)
Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols.

Anyone who sees and paints a sky green and fields blue ought to be sterilized.

Quote by Adolf Hitler

Its probably worth pointing out the original context of this quote. Karl Popper is arguing against a communist society. He is defending a liberal democratic state against an autocratic state. He is defending a society that allows for difference. I am not sure that Popper intended tolerance to stand on its own (you might need a better Popper scholar than me to determine that).
“The Open Society and Its Enemies” was a significant anti-communist statement in the cold war period.
That’s the sort of society that benefits Christians: a society in which we are free to follow Christ, that does not ordain an established religion (or anti-religion).

“The truly tolerant are those who believe what they are committed to, but do not castigate or seek to cast out those who disagree with them.”

By this definition the church cannot and must not be a tolerant place. We are commanded to cast out those who, for example, hold positions of teaching authority and “disagree” that Jesus rose from the dead bodily or that men having sex with other men is good.

The last thing the church should claim by your definition is “tolerance”. We are utterly intolerant of heretics.

Ah, Matt, the quote is not about the church. Its about the state. Fr Jake has used it out of context.

So . . . does the use of this quote count as preaching intolerance?

The quote demonstrates the so-called “paradox of liberalism”.

Bad regimes do not tolerate views opposed to their own. Liberalism is good because it tolerates all views. Excpt that it does not tolerate views that oppose the toleration of all views.

That is, liberalism is like all other ideologies. It tolerates all views—except those opposed to its own.

Thanks #13 for bringing us back to what we should be talking about. The only other occurance of `tolerate’ in my ESV is also pertinent, I think

Esth 3:8 Then Haman said to King Ahasuerus, There is a certain people scattered abroad and dispersed among the peoples in all the provinces of your kingdom.  Their laws are different from those of every other people, and they do not keep the king’s laws, so that it is not to the king’s profit to tolerate them.

I think the concept of “tolerance” has hijacked and twisted all around.  One only tolerates things that are not good and pleasing.  You might tolerate your toddler’s spilling his milk every day….but you don’t “tolerate” his eating all his vegetables.  I think the Lord wants us to look for things to do and ways to be that can be celebrated and not tolerated.  I was once told by a well known Presbyterian minister that “tolerate” was in the Bible several times in relation to God (I think 8 specific times), and in every one of those passages it was a case of “He does NOT tolerate” this or that…..

We do not have to tolerate that which we know is wrong.  It is as simple as stating that we are not going to accept it….and we can absolutely do that in a joyful and loving way, with Christ as our example.  Isn’t that what standing firm is all about?

I was present this week at a clergy meeting addressed by a Bishop (who spoke very well on a number of things) but who was very big on tolerance. He regularly reads, as a preface to the Peace at Communion, verses from Faber’s ‘There’s a wideness in God’s mercy’.

But, what struck me, and strikes me with this discussion, is that the liberal Christian tolerance (or inclusiveness) is only tolerant (or inclusive) to groups which the wider society have already said OK to.

So, yes, homosexuals. But paedophiles? Most definitely not. But which of those two groups are the real hated outsiders in today’s society (we might say ‘rightly’ but that only underlines the point - people in Jesus’ day had real reasons for excluding lepers).

I often think in this context of Oscar Wilde’s words:
‘Approval of what is approved of
is as false as a well-kept vow’.

Hi obadiahslope,

I was responding to Pageantmaster, not the quote in the main text.

Well said, William S

“Those that claim tolerance yet practice intolerance by excluding the very ones that need to be included are intolerant in themselves. Their intolerance is only exceeded by their companions, a group whose closely held ideas by their very logic practice inclusion, the exclusion of others, and intolerance.” - Festivus

This is another classic Orwellian redefinition. What the left wants is not tolerance for their actions; they already have that. They are demanding approval and calling it tolerance. Not the same thing at all.
  Tolerance is a noun, defined by the amount of allowable excursion from a nominal standard or measurement. By that definition, we are tolerant indeed.

Imperialism, disquised as “multiculturalism”.

IE: We’ll celebrate your food, your clothes, your dance and your song… all the superficial aspects of your “culture”.  But your beliefs?  Religion?  Traditions?  Oh no no, those MUST be changed.  We Who Know Best will show you the true path…

Kum Bay Ya!

Marty, I get what you are saying, but I feel obliged to make one point anyway, even though I’m sure it would give all my profs a fit if I were to say it in their world history classes.

Cultural imperialism is a good thing, if it involved demolishing false religions and replacing it with the Gospel.  One can replace false religions with the Gospel while tolerating or even celebrating superficial things like clothing, dance and music styles.

The problem with liberal “Christians” is twofold.  The first is that they are not honest with themselves and others about the fact that they are just as determined as us conservative Christians to stamp out false beliefs and replace them with the Gospel, but instead lie about being tolerant and postmodern.  The second is that they have a False Gospel.

#7, Reminds me of my favorite saying:
“That’s just my opinion…..but I’m very, very right about it.”

You nailed it AndrewA.  They are dishonest with themselves.

“We don’t tolerate those who are intolerant.” The liberals then spontaneously explode their illogicalness.

This is one of those inherently self-contradictory statements, like “all generalizations are false.”

In its proper context and in a limited political and historical sense, however, Popper’s statement makes sense.  The European totalitarian movements came to power through means that were ostensibly legitimate within their political context, but once in power, they pulled up the ladder so that they could not be replaced by the same means (e.g., the Bolsheviks were elected to the initial Congress of Soviets and then suppressed all other parties, Mussolini was appointed prime minister by Victor Emmanuel and then suppressed his opposition, Hitler became chancellor under the Weimar constitution, which he quickly replaced, etc.).

I assume Popper’s intention was to say that even in an “open society,” would-be cuckoos should be suppressed in order to keep them from eliminating their rivals.  But, of course, a genuinely “open” society has faith in the power of and ultimate triumph of the truth and finds no need to persecute anyone advocating ideas by non-violent means.

To the extent this has any bearing on TEC, however, I expect its application works in the opposite way intended by a revisionist, as a simple examination of who is actually being driven out and who is actually doing the driving out in TEC shows.

From my T-shirt:

Front:
“Intolerance is a Beautiful Thing. - Josh McDowell”

Back:
“- Mother Teresa was intolerant of poverty.
- Bono was intolerant of AIDS.
- Nelson Mandela was intolerant of apartheid.
- Martin Luther King was intolerant of racism.
- Jesus was intolerant of bigotry.”

Meh.

Two different gospels, both of which are antithetical to one another, and therefore mutually opposing.  You can’t have the Gospel of Christ while at the same time proudly blessing and affirming sin.  At the same time you can’t have the gospel of inclusion [of currently faddish sexual orientations and various other things libs like] while at the same time affirming and including the Gospel of Christ. 

So one or the other has to go.

What’s sweetly ironic is to hear the proponents of the gospel of inclusion [of certain people and behaviors] trumpeting on about “tolerance” while at the same time revealing their hypocricy. 

The proponents of the Gospel of Christ don’t trumpet on about “tolerance” of heresies in churches.  Tolerance of heresy is of course not a claimed part of our values.

But when the proponents of the gospel of inclusion use the rhetoric of “tolerance” as a part of their mantra and claimed values, it always helps to know that they’re simply liars.  Helps to know how to respond to who they are.

On a practical level, if you’re in a parish or diocese or wherever, and the libs are prattling about the importance of “tolerance” generally speaking it means that they feel they are in a weakened position, and are appealing to your emotions and attempting to sway your actions.  Once they gain power, the talk of “tolerance” goes flying out the window [except as public media window dressing of course.]

So talk of tolerance tells you where they feel they are right now, as far as power.  Talk of “we never need to be tolerant of evil” tells you where they feel they are right now, too.

I wonder if such attitudes that we describe in this post have anything to do with this incident.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,549260,00.html

A well-known anti-abortion activist was shot multiple times and killed Friday morning in front of a Michigan high school and another man was shot and killed just miles away in what police are investigating as related incidents.

Sarah #34 wrote:

Once they gain power, the talk of “tolerance” goes flying out the window

Might I add that once they are in power, they will all the more freely point the finger of intolerance at others.

For the love of all thats right and holy! ...  Where does this brain-rotting Orwellian claptrap come from?  Its only through the permanent checking of one’s brain at the door, that one can actually embrace this dreck.

I don’t know if I’m a Popper scholar, but I very much enjoy reading him. As obadiahslope pointed out, the quote is taken out of context, much as Scriptural discussions about shellfish and justice are often taken out of context in these sorts of discussions.

Part of the problem in discussing issues with our Worthy Opponents is they equate tolerance, which merely means allowing something to continue to exist with approval. Tolerance is an important trait in an urban society. I tolerate my neighbours’ weird habits and they tolerate mine. That doesn’t mean we approve of each other.

In church we tolerate our neighbour’s bad singing. We really wish he would stop, but as annoying as it is, it seems to bring him joy. We do not necessarily approve of it. But we ought not to tolerate our rector’s firm adherence to Gnosticism. And we certainly should not approve of it.

Patience and forbearance are virtues, tolerance is not.

On the same site, a priest has asked whether, as an orthodox (i.e., mainstream) Anglican with Christian moral views, would he be welcome, by the commenters, as the pastor of their congregations?  The answer is overwhelmingly “no.”

It’s a through-the-looking-glass world, friends.

obadiahslope:

Karl Popper is arguing against a communist society. He is defending a liberal democratic state against an autocratic state. He is defending a society that allows for difference. I am not sure that Popper intended tolerance to stand on its own (you might need a better Popper scholar than me to determine that).
“The Open Society and Its Enemies” was a significant anti-communist statement in the cold war period.

You are quite correct.  I am no expert on Popper either, but I did read “The Open Society and Its Enemies” in college, along with the definitive Marxist response to that work, “The Open Philosophy and the Open Society,” by Maurice Cornforth.

Here is the longer passage from which the above excerpt is taken:

The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any restraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek.  This idea is, in a slightly different form, and with a very different tendency, clearly expressed by Plato.

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance.  If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.  In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.  But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.  We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.  We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

Popper was a champion of liberal democratic capitalism in the postwar era and “The Open Society and Its Enemies” was written in 1945 to express his objections to all forms of totalitarianism.  It is inconceivable that he would now support the suppression of unpopular ideas in the name of combating “intolerance,” provided that the expression of those ideas was not accompanied by acts of violence and attempts at coercion.

If some of our revisionist friends are coming to suspect that orthodox Christians need to be hustled off to re-education camps for the greater good of their version of a tolerant society, they may need to look elsewhere for a source of inspiration, although they will certainly not have to look very far.

Well, I’m very affirming of GLBT inclusion in the church, Phil, and I don’t agree with those commentators at all.  Neither would my progressive priest.

Some of their responses to this good, and sincere priest broke my heart.  I was especially grieved by the comment of one brother priest who shared something to the effect that this man should not even be in the priesthood at all.

Does he think to stand in the place of God to judge the calling, and gifts of the Lord in someone else’s life???

Our unity is in Jesus Christ around His gospel. We need to be loving each other fiercely, holding onto each other, and trusting God to help us work through all of this together. Anything less is a scandal to the “good news.”

I’ve been attending the Episcopal church for some time, but this Sunday, I"m going to blessed, and formally receieved by the presiding bishop into TEC. Needless to say I’m very excited!!

But, brothers, and sisters, with the lack of love, and grace Christians show toward each other around so many of these issues, I sometimes have to wonder why people outside the church would want to even be part of us at all.

Weep for those who seeing our poor witness have fallen away from the faith, wanting nothing to do with our Lord, or with His church.

Grace,

It’s nice to hear from you - it seems like it’s been a while.

I should say, in fairness, that many on our side would make a similar evaluation about a priest preaching modern sexual morality.  Of course, I think there is a major difference in that we are standing by the unbroken and still overwhelming consensus view of the Church throughout time.  That should count for something.

Your comments through the years show that you’re a remarkable Christian, Grace - and I say that as a compliment only, and not as though I’m in any position to judge the matter, because I’m just a sinner - and I pray you will stay strong for the Lord within ECUSA.  I fear there are more temptations within it to do otherwise than is spiritually healthy.

RE: “Our unity is in Jesus Christ around His gospel.”

Of course . . . we’re not at all unified in Jesus Christ around His gospel.  Manifestly we are not unified.

And manifestly we do not share the same gospel.

Hence. . . .the disunity within the Episcopal Church.

Well, I’m very affirming of GLBT inclusion in the church,

Me too.  And murderers, and pedophiles, and people who have divorced and remarried, and people who have been married and divorced several times, and people who have had extramarital affairs, and alcoholics, and gossips, and fornicators, and swindlers, and greedy businessfolk, and idolators, and well, you get the picture.  I want all of them to go to Heaven. 

I do not however support inclusion of clergy who preach heresy, nor who declare sin to be holy, nor live sinful lives out in the open, nor sin and never repent. 

I hold laity to the same standards, though not as strictly.

I find this discussion intolerable.  Ooops!...

We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

Regardless of context, I hope no revisionists are planning to follow this literally.  If they don’t tolerate the intolerant, then that makes them intolerant too, which means they will have to be intolerant of themselves ... and it all gets rather messy and complicated…

Thank you, Phil. I’ve missed you, too. It has been awhile. Do you happen to have your own blog??

Sarah, I think in every denomination, there are people who have left the gospel. You won’t get an argument from me, there. As the Scripture states, “The tares are mixed with the wheat.”

But, the determination of this can’t simply be based in someone’s view of same-sex blessing in the church.

Equally committed, even orthodox, Christian believers may interpret the Scripture differently in this issue, and disagree..In the same way that there is a difference of interpretation, opinion in the church relating to divorce, and remarriage, or the role of women.

There is only one gospel, that Jesus Christ died for our sins, and was raised for our justification. It is by the dying, and rising again of our Savior that we are put right with God, and with each other.

If you agree with this, Sarah, and have trusted Jesus Christ as Savior, and Lord, then I think you are my sister in Christ, regardless of our difference relating to the blessing of same sex unions, or the ordination of gay bishops.

Are you a priest of the church, Moot?

Intriguing quotation. My thanks to Jackie for posting it.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Many of you misinterpret Popper and for the most ironic of reasons.

Politically correct folk have twisted the meaning of tolerate. The Revisionist_Dictionary summarizes the shift in meaning:

TOLERATE
- - (1) Traditionally, to respect others’ freedom (e.g., of speech, belief, and conscience) even when you disagree with their views: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” These words, attributed to Voltaire, underscore the traditional distinction between upholding someone’s freedom to speak and agreeing with the speaker’s message.
- - (2) For Progressives, to acknowledge the substantive validity of others’ views, consistent with a worldview of moral relativism. To be “tolerant” of others’ views, you must regard those views as valid—indeed, regard all views as equally valid. “If you believe Jesus is uniquely the Way, the Truth, and the Life, you are ‘intolerant’ regardless of your willingness to defend others’ freedom to believe otherwise.”

You, dear friends, read “tolerate” in its corrupted PC sense of total moral relativism. But Popper is almost certainly using the word in its traditional sense. Popper, of Jewish ancestry, was born in Austria during 1902. He wrote this passage during World War II, long before PC. He had seen the evils of totalitarianism, both Bolshevist and National Socialist. He had narrowly escaped the Holocaust. He was (I take it) reflecting on how the Nazis had used the democratic freedoms of the Weimar Republic to destabilize and subvert democracy. He was not seeking to impose a PC straitjacket on others. He was wrestling with how to prevent totalitarians from turning democratic freedoms into a one-way ticket to dictatorship. Even if we disagree with his statement, as I do, we should not lightly take jabs at him—much less depict him as clamoring for mass conformity.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Consider:

—Postwar Germany banned the Nazi Party, denying even peaceful Nazis (such as they may have been) customary freedoms of speech and association. Did that ban merit scorn?

—To the great indignation of Marxist students, Germany still prohibits totalitarians (specifically, persons who oppose “the basic order of freedom and democracy”) from becoming civil servants. Does that prohibition merit scorn?

—Should the Indonesian government allow Al-Qaida supporters to form a highly regimented (though as yet peaceful) mass movement dedicated to subverting democracy and establishing the most unbending and aggressive Islamist dictatorship in the history of the world?

—Does the Indonesian government, by abridging even peaceful Al-Qaida sympathizers’ freedom to form a mass movement, practice “brain-rotting Orwellian claptrap”?

Poppers’ knee-jerk critics on this thread will want to ignore or dismiss such questions. Yet the issues I pose are timely and very real.

In sum, let’s not unwittingly subscribe to the modern PC corruption of “tolerance.” Let’s not unfairly read it into Popper’s statement. And let’s consider whether we ourselves, faced with an aggressively growing totalitarian political machine, would really allow it broad freedom of action?
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

The more I see, the more strongly I support First Amendment rights. But given the radical evil Popper witnessed and pondered, I will not sneer at his statement.

Are you a priest of the church, Moot?

What an odd question.  Are you a United States Senator?

Patience and forbearance are virtues, tolerance is not.

“Tolerance” as traditionally understood is a form of patience and forbearance.

Let’s not capitulate to the PC hijacking of “tolerance.”
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

“Tolerance” as traditionally understood can also, depending on the context:

-o- Reflect godly humility about our own wisdom and godly skepticism about our own motivations.

-o- Carry out the Law of Love by according others the same liberties of we claim for ourselves.

—Postwar Germany banned the Nazi Party, denying even peaceful Nazis (such as they may have been) customary freedoms of speech and association. Did that ban merit scorn?

Actually, yes.  For one thing, one can’t simply ban the “NAZI” Party and expect to have any effect.  All someone has to do is resurrect the same ideas and wrap them up in a different label, or simply be a “Unorganized Association” instead of a party. 

Then you have to start banning ideas instead of specific parties, and you resurrect the Thought Police, turning full circle back to totalitarianism.  Any out of power political party risks getting labeled as Nazi.  Would you want some politician or police officer having the power to decide that your political or moral views constitute “Right Wing Extremism”? 

Furthermore, they did not, to the best of my knowledge, ban Communist organizations and symbols.  A swastika will put you in jail in much of Europe.  The Hammer and Sickle won’t.  Totally unbalanced.

Moot and Marty, I’m intrigued to see you taking potshots at Popper.
-o- Moot has sometimes seemed to have a soft spot for Old Testament-style Islamic justice—things (as I recall) on the order of executing adulterers, blasphemers, homosexuals, rebellious children, or the like.
-o- I recall Marty reveling over the years in various secular abuses of power.
-o- By contrast with these practices, Popper seems quite mild in asserting that we can abridge some civil liberties to avert a totalitarian takeover. What am I missing?

“The Open Society and Its Enemies is an influential two-volume work by Karl Popper written during World War II.”  (From Wikipedia)

Dear my heavens you guys are reaching.  Popper was writing in New Zealand in the 1940’s.  He is hardly a contemporary progressive Episcopalian or American secular liberal.  If you give me enough time and motivation (I have none) I am sure I can find something inflammatory some conservative said sometime in the last 60 or so years.

FWIW
jimB

-o- Moot has sometimes seemed to have a soft spot for Old Testament-style Islamic justice—things (as I recall) on the order of executing adulterers, blasphemers, homosexuals, rebellious children, or the like.

Except, technically it would have been Old-Testament Theocratic Israel type justice;  and technically I’m not on the “ought to” bandwagon when it comes to offenses other than murder within this eschatological age;  and technically, your use of the word ‘seems,’ seems to have lessoned the impact of the the beginning, middle, and ending parts of your observation. 

AndrewA [#52]: I’m neither advocating a Nazi ban nor asserting that it could be perfectly effective. But was it wrong to ban the Nazi Party during the years following World War II?
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

BTW, Germany did ban the Communist Party (KPD) and has also banned Nazi-friendly groups that did not use the Nazi label. I’m not advocating that. But consider whether you as the Indonesian government would allow full civil liberties to a burgeoning, uniformed, clench-fisted, goose-stepping Great Grassroots Movement for an Immediate Universal Caliphate. Would limiting Al-Qaida supporters now be fundamentally different from limiting Nazis in 1931-32?

Your use of the word ‘seems,’ seems to have lessened the impact of the the beginning, middle, and ending parts of your observation.

Moot [#55]: Seems so. I added the “seems,” after some hesitation, out of an abundance of mildness. I recall, for example, a Stand Firm thread in which you were quite reluctant to rule out the execution of adulterers.

Yup.  I remember it, too.  I remember that. 

I also remember learning Dutch modal verbs, about 22 (23?) years ago, as well.  What I can’t remember is at what point in grade school I learned to make the ethical distinction between ‘may’ and ‘ought.’  That part of my memory is kinda fuzzy.  That distinction helped me in learning my Dutch modal verbs, and also in discussing ethics later in life. 

Do you remember when you learned the distinction between ‘may’ and ‘ought’ ?

fundamentally different from limiting Nazis in 1931-32?

Before we go on about how peaceful and democratically the Nazis got elected, keep in mind that the Nazi Party had already tried a rather undemocratic “Beer Hall” revolution that Hitler served jail time for.  Weimar should have kept him in jail or at least revoked his right to run for political office.  It should have broken up the SA (and their Communist counterparts) because of their numerous acts of thuggary that were well outside of the law and democratic freedoms.  It should have fixed the loophole in its constitution that Hitler exploited, particularly the ability to use a state of emergency to ban political parties.

Do you remember when you learned the distinction between ‘may’ and ‘ought’?

Nae, sir. A dinna hae mynd naught anent ought.

“Tolerance” has come to mean something similar to “appreciate” but actually means something like “put up with”.

..(?).

(um, no. No.)

I agree with Moot’s point.

No, of course not, Moot. (laughing) I’m a lowly human service field worker. I meant no disrespect to you, in asking, Moot. It was an honest question, trying to know you better.

But, to respond to your other comment.. I think the Scripture is not really addressing sexual orientation in the way that we understand it today, constitutional homosexuality.

Should we compare people who are committed to the Lord, genuinely loving (caring) for each other, in life-giving, monogamous relationships for years, and years, to cold-blooded murderers, and pedophiles, idoloters etc.??

Do you see what I’m saying, Moot?

Also, guys, I personally think we need to be very careful in how we define “heresy.” It seems to me that this term can be tossed about far too lightly.

I’m able to see a huge difference between teaching rejecting the reality of say, the incarnation, the reality of God as trinity, and sincere Christian people who have a difference of opinion relating to the right interpretation, and application of the Scripture.

I actually have a good friend in my parish who almost ended up not being recieved into TEC, because of some statement made by the PB about an emphasis on individual salvation being heretical. So, I guess none of us are immune in not being careful with our words.

What do we feel together is really at the center of Christian faith? It’s one thing to say we should have a concern for heretical teachers in the church, and another to judge that everyone who disagrees with us is deliberately affirming heresy, and has malevolent motives.

Also, have to add that I think, not only should we tolerate the intolerate. God calls us to love those who are intolerant. The verse is sitting there right now staring us all in the face. Matt. 5:43-45.

Before we go on about how peaceful and democratically the Nazis got elected.

AndrewA [#59]: You’re hearing voices. But I’d be very interested in your response to the Indonesian question in #49. You responded to a similar question in #56 with a sideswipe, not an answer.

But consider even the sideswipe. You assert that the Weimar Republic “should have broken up the SA [i.e., Brownshirts] because of their numerous acts of thuggery that were well outside of the law and democratic freedoms.” That’s very close to Popper’s point. The SA had (as I recall) hundreds of thousands of members during the late Weimar years, many of whom had probably not (yet) committed common crimes. If you banned the organization, you’d be doing more than punishing the individually guilty under the usual rules against thuggery. You’d be taking action consistent with Popper’s statement.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

In any event, Popper’s basic argument does not (as you seem to assume) live or die based on details of how the Weimar Republic might have dealt differently with Nazis. Hence my Indonesian question:

Should the Indonesian government allow Al-Qaida sympathizers to form a highly regimented (though as yet peaceful) mass movement dedicated to subverting democracy and establishing the most unbending and aggressive Islamist dictatorship in the history of the world?

I suspect that most of Popper’s detractors on this thread would say no.

The limits of individual freedom should, in my never too humble opinion, are dependent on the firmness with which those freedoms are extended to the whole, and the constitute population’s collectivist quotient.

The more ‘collective’ the people, the more they have cause to fear controlling ideologies.  Banning parties might be the ‘proper response’ in collectivists societies, while it would be counter to the ‘reason of the people’ to do so in more individualistic ones.

In other words, what is ‘fine’ for Indonesia wouldn’t be for the US.

RE: “Sarah, I think in every denomination, there are people who have left the gospel.”

Certainly—and those people in TEC happen to be the leaders at the hightest levels of our denomination.

RE: “But, the determination of this can’t simply be based in someone’s view of same-sex blessing in the church.”

Yes it pretty much can.  Sure there are a few—a very few—who happen to take an odd and inconsistent and heretical view of gay sex and its acceptability while at the same time believing in the atonement, the physical resurrection, the authority of scripture, the fall of man, and so on.  But they’re not the vast vast vast majority of the folks who affirm same-gender sexual relations as a holy and blessed thing.

No, as we’ve demonstrated through literally now hundreds and hundreds of posts, the vast vast vast vast majority of the leaders of our church who affirm same-gender sexual relations also—quite naturally—do not believe the Gospel.

So in general we’re able to tell pretty handily who’s not a believer by their stances on same-gender sexual relationships.  The correlation between those who accept and affirm gay sex as holy and blessed and those who do not believe or promote the Gospel, but in fact promote an opposing gospel, is almost 100%.

That is why, of course, Grace, you are a woman without a country.  You cannot find fellowship amongst traditionalists.  And you do not find fellowship with the vast vast vast majority of your fellow revisionists.

Should we compare people who are committed to the Lord, genuinely loving (caring) for each other, in life-giving, monogamous relationships for years, and years, to cold-blooded murderers, and pedophiles, idoloters etc.??

It’s interesting that you frame it that way, Grace.  When I group homosexuals among other sinners who need to turn from their sin and turn to Christ, I’m actually making a bold statement to some Christians who (e.g.,) believe homosex to be a worse sin than murder. 

There are also, among those Christians, those who would never, ever, in a million years, approve of someone initiating an evangelism program at their parish (e.g., Exodus) to go after the Prodigals caught up in homosexuality… because they believe homosexuals to be a lost cause. 

My comments are gracious.  You read them, and find condemnation in them.  Very interesting indeed. 

Should we compare people who are committed to the Lord, genuinely loving (caring) for each other, in life-giving, monogamous relationships for years,

I actually haven’t found any places in Scripture that speak favorably about a “monogamous” relationship that wasn’t concerned about the gender of the people in the relationship, and the combination of genders in the relationship.  I also haven’t found a place that repudiates divorce among “people who are committed to the Lord, genuinely loving (caring) for each other, in life-giving, monogamous relationships for years.” 

“For this reason, a man leaves his father and mother and cleaves to his wife…”

Pretty blatently heterosexual, whenever the M-word and the D-word are mulled over by God for our benefit.

Should we compare people who are committed to the Lord, genuinely loving (caring) for each other, in life-giving, monogamous relationships for years, and years, to cold-blooded murderers, and pedophiles, idoloters etc.??

Grace,
Do you believe sin is sin?  Or is your sin less offensive than mine?  All sin separates us from the love of God and is therefore to be shunned. 
Are you also saying that one man lovingly, tenderly and openly committed to 3 women should be denied the access to the priesthood?

“That is why, of course, Grace, you are a woman without a country.  You cannot find fellowship amongst traditionalists.  And you do not find fellowship with the vast vast vast majority of your fellow revisionists.”

Nevertheless, although I do not always agree with her, from what I have read posted by her in the last several years I would say that Grace 2000 is someone rather special and a blessing to us all.

Grace, you are a woman without a country.  You cannot find fellowship amongst traditionalists.

Not sure how Sarah [#67] is using “find fellowship.” Grace would be most welcome in my orthodox congregation, even though most of us disagree with her about homosexual conduct and same-sex blessing.

Hi Irenaeus, I certainly acknowledge that Grace is most likely in a parish and would have no difficulty finding a parish anywhere she goes, whether traditional or revisionist.

Grace, you destroyed the foundation of your own argument:

I think the Scripture is not really addressing sexual orientation in the way that we understand it today, constitutional homosexuality.

That’s a rather recent, full of logical contradictions, view of homosexuality.  Even the researcher who first posited a genetic basis for homosexuality retracted that position as unsupportable by actual research.  The entire human genome has been mapped for several years now.  There is no gay gene. (No +NH jokes, please)

If homosexuality were someday shown to be genetic, and gene splicing or some in utero treatment could make the fetus heterosexual constitutionally, should the obvious dissonance between biological gender and genetic sexual orientation be treated and corrected?  Think how the GLBT community would howl (along with all of us who abhor abortion) if physicians pressured and mothers chose to abort when the genetic marker for homosexuality showed up in amniotic fluid, as is often the case when Downs syndrome is detected in the fetus.

What if someday an inexpensive, side-effect free pill is discovered that would change one’s sexual orientation to match biological gender?  Would all the self-identified “constitutional” gays and lesbians who say, “No one would choose to be gay.  I’ve tried to change and I can’t.  This is how God made me.” take that pill and end their ostracism from “straight” society?  Should medical insurance be forced to pay for that treatment, and even have it be made mandatory for public health reasons?  These things may never happen, but considering their implications reveals how full of holes the “constitutional” argument is.

More seriously, Grace, if Scripture got wrong something that has produced so much personal pain in wrongly declaring same-sex sexual relationship unequivocally sinful in OT, NT, and by easy inference from Jesus’ statements about fulfilling the Mosaic Law which punished those relations by stoning and that marriage was only one man to one woman for life, then how can you trust it to say, “There is only one gospel, that Jesus Christ died for our sins, and was raised for our justification. It is by the dying, and rising again of our Savior that we are put right with God, and with each other.”, or, “the incarnation, the reality of God as trinity”.  As Sarah points out, the vastX3 majority of TEC’s leadership thinks Scripture got those things wrong, too.

That problem stems from believing that the Bible contains the word of God (implying that some of it, especially the parts we dislike, is not) rather than believing that, from the excellent and voluminous evidence for the reliability, accuracy, and prophetic fulfillment of Scripture, that the Bible is the word of God in its entirety, as attested by Jesus, Peter, Paul, John, and others.  In this case, it really does depend on what the meaning of “is” is!

Should we compare people who are committed to the Lord, genuinely loving (caring) for each other, in life-giving, monogamous relationships for years,

For years?  Whatever happened to “lifelong”?  Has that been dropped from the litany?

and years, to cold-blooded murderers,

Like the abortionists that TEC supports?

and pedophiles,

Further proof that liberals only support the fashionable oppressed sexual minorities.  I think you need to start a new Listening Process.  Ever actually communicated a pedophile and gotten their side of the story?  They will assure you that they were born that way, that their desires are natural, and that they aren’t interested in just sex but in love.  They will give you slogans like “Love is never wrong.”  They will tell you that they are perfectly capable of having a genuinely caring life-giving relationship with their young friends.  They will say that such relationships do exist, but you never here about them in the media because the child never complains in such a relationship.  They will say that that the guilt and damage to the child is usually caused by society’s intense hostillity and bigotry against such relationship, or that when the relationships are abusive it is because the pedophile was warped by society’s hatred of them. 

idoloters etc.??

I’m shocked, shocked I say, by the bigotry inherent in this statement.  What a bunch of triumphalist Western cultural imperialism, to place the faith traditions of others in the same category as cold blooded murder!

Grace
Everywhere homosexuality is addressed in the Bible, it is wrong.  If I cannot trust what the Bible says about this what can I trust in it?

Sarah, you, and I have not had the same experience. Over the years, I’ve known people who are actually evangelical who would affirm same-sex relationships, and I’ve known folks definitely more liberal than I theologically who oppose same gender blessing in the church.  At any rate, I"m sure you agree that we need to be careful about making a blanket judgment that includes everyone in TEC.

Guys, I need to affirm here that I"m not in favor of opening a pandora’s box, and suggesting the church bless everything from polyamory to pedophilia. God have mercy!

Let’s be honest. I personally have enough difficulty lovin, and working things through with one spouse. Do you think it possible for a man to have equally caring, fair, egalitarian relationships with multiple women?? There’s a reason why Scripture moves in the direction of monogamy, which Jesus Christ affirms.

Can you imagine the jealousies that ensue in these kind of situations, not just among the multiple partners, but also relating to the children, who is the most favored, and so on..  It’s truly a situation ripe for exploitation.

And, how is it possible for anyone to have a truly egalitarian, non-exploitive relationship with a child??

To me, to try, and compare all this to life-long, committed gay union is like mixing apples with oranges, guys. It doesn’t make sense.

Also want to say, that I don’t know that people are simply born gay. That hasn’t been established. But, all the evidence does point in the direction of a genetic predisposition, along with other factors to be sure. But, it’s not as if folks wake up one morning, and simply “choose.”

Milton, and Just One, will you go the website, “Evangelicals Concerned,” and check out their take on these various “clobber verses,” what the Bible says about homosexuality?

I can honestly affirm to everyone here that while I’m not a fundamentalist, I personally do have a very high view of the authority of Scripture for the faith, and practice of the church. I don’t take what the Scripture says lightly at all. For me, this is truly more a matter of coming to the correct interpretation, and application of Scripture.

Also, I care very deeply for my gay, and lesbian brothers, and sisters. I’m concerned for their best, to show God’s love, and that the outreach of the gospel into the gay community is not hindered in any way.

Thanks Pageantmaster, and Irenaeus for your kindness.

Will give everyone the last word for now, but will be back to visit again, soon. Thanks for sharing your honest thinking with me, too.

God bless!

The problem is Grace that your reasoning overthrows Biblical authority.  What you offer is your opinion and your opinion is not authoritative.

Quite often God tells us to do something (or not)and we are to do it for no better reason than God told us to do it or not to do it.

And, how is it possible for anyone to have a truly egalitarian, non-exploitive relationship with a child??

The same way it possible to have a sexual relationship between two people of the same gender that is holy and blessed and affirmed by God.

Also want to say, that I don’t know that people are simply born gay. That hasn’t been established. But, all the evidence does point in the direction of a genetic predisposition, along with other factors to be sure. But, it’s not as if folks wake up one morning, and simply “choose.”

But the thing is that it is completly, utterly irrelevent, whether or not someone chooses to be gay, just as it is completly, utterly irrelevent whether or not someone chooses to be a pedophile.

Also, I care very deeply for my gay, and lesbian brothers, and sisters. I’m concerned for their best, to show God’s love, and that the outreach of the gospel into the gay community is not hindered in any way.

I care deeply for my gay, lesbian, bisexual, transexual, pedophile, and zoophile brothers, sisters, friends and cousins.  I’m very concerned that the expression of God’s love and the preaching ot the Gospel to all these communities is not hindered in anyway, to include not misleading them about what God has commanded us not to do. 

Going back again:
</blockquote>But, to respond to your other comment.. I think the Scripture is not really addressing sexual orientation in the way that we understand it today, constitutional homosexuality.</blockquote>

What do you think it is addressing?

If “consitutional homosexuality” is a “natural” part of humanity, why wasn’t it addresed in the Bible?  I don’t see any exceptions granted in the Bible to people that were “born that way.”

<blockquote>how is it possible for anyone to have a truly egalitarian, non-exploitive relationship with a child??<blockquote>

One more thought on this:  The same-sex relationship that were common in the Greco-Roman world of the time, particularly the Hellenistic East, were no more non-egalitarian in terms of the relative ages or relative rights of the two males, than the marriages were.  If anything, free Greek youths in their teens had FAR for power in their paederastic relationships with young men than teenage Greek, Roman or even Jewish girls had in their arranged marriages to much older men.

To me, to try, and compare all this to life-long, committed gay union is like mixing apples with oranges, guys. It doesn’t make sense.

I still haven’t been told where to look to find where Scripture speaks disapprovingly of homosexual divorce, or for that matter acknowledges the possibility of homosexual marriage in the first place. 

May I assume that the reason you haven’t mentioned such a texts, is in fact because Scripture only recognizes a single type of sexual relationship (heterosexual marriage) as valid?

If you don’t wish to engage, that is fine, but I will understand your silence as agreement.

Even the researcher who first posited a genetic basis for homosexuality retracted that position as unsupportable by actual research.—#73

Grace [#64] didn’t say “genetically constitutional homosexuality.” Childhood environment can shape one’s sexuality.

But from a Biblical standpoint environment versus genetics is not determinative. The Bible focuses on our conduct: on what we do with our desires. It does not leave us free to do as we please, no matter how sincere and unavoidable our desires may be. Thus I am not free to have sexual relations with a married woman, no matter how profound my desires or how strongly she may share them.

Thus #73’s reflexive it’s-not-genetic argument implicitly adopts the revisionist premise that we have a moral right (despite Biblical teaching) to engage in conduct to which we are genetically predisposed.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Note the parallel to the point made in #49. First we have orthodox commenters reading the recent PC definition of “tolerance” into Karl Popper’s 1945 statement—and then slamming Popper for PC follies and hypocrisies. Now we have an it’s-not-genetic pounce when, from a Biblical standpoint, the rightness of the conduct doesn’t turn on genetics.

Further proof that liberals only support the fashionable oppressed sexual minorities.

Over the past two years, Grace has shown herself thoughtful, sincere, and consistently courteous.

What justifies taking this tone with her?

Over the past two years, Grace has shown herself thoughtful, sincere, and consistently courteous.

What justifies taking this tone with her?

Heh.

Believe me, I’m downright polite compared to when I was cutting my teath on newsgroups at the age of 14. 

My response isn’t meant to show contempt for Grace as a person.  I don’t know her from Adam.  My response is the the arguments used.  There are also personal reasons why I get bothered by the “Homosexuality is okay because they can’t help themselves and they are really In Wuv, but those perverts over there are another story” arguments.  Part of it has to do with dealing with people that excuse heterosexual fornication while heaving contempt on homosexuals.  Part of it has to do with having studied stuff ranging from Greek paederastic poetry to contemporary “boylove” blogs and discussion boards, and seeing the nearly identicle arguments and expressions of True Wuv coming from paedophiles and homosexuals alike. 

It is completly and utterly irrelevent to me whether or not a person is acting upon desires that are genetic or conditioned, and whether or not the persons involved are enjoying themselves, are in love, are happy, and are completly and utterly satisfied with their relationship.  They can be nice people, thoughtful people, caring people, witty people, etc.  They can give of themselves to each other self sacrificially.  All irrelevent.

Ecclesiastes 1
9 That which has been is what will be,
That which is done is what will be done,
And there is nothing new under the sun.
10 Is there anything of which it may be said,
“See, this is new”?
It has already been in ancient times before us.
11 There is no remembrance of former things,
Nor will there be any remembrance of things that are to come
By those who will come after.

What is being missed is the premise that the current version of homosexuality was unknown during Biblical times.  God is omniscient or He is not.  If He is not omniscient then Scripture becomes untrustworthy and there are limits on God’s power.  This makes Scripture dead because it only speaks to the people alive at the time it was written.

Furthermore, to claim that monogamous homosexuality is different requires a judgement of a person’s heart and mind.  This is the realm of God.  Our ability to judge other people ends with their behavior.  Where else do we excuse sin based on a determination of the condition of the person’s heart and mind?

To say that homosexuality is consistent with Scripture requires us to overlay something extra-Biblical which bends Scripture to square with us.  Scripture should be seen as the template we lay over our lives and work on those things that don’t align.  Those that affirm same-sex behavior are laying their own subjective template on Scripture.

In the end the argument still centers on the revisionists asking the orthodox to agree with them while the orthodox are asking the revisionists to agree with Scripture.

The conflict is irreconcilable as long as revisionists look at Scripture and say that it is wrong.

Heh. Believe me, I’m downright polite compared to when I was cutting my teath on newsgroups at the age of 14.

I’m tempted to say I believe you. In any event, note that Serena Williams made a similar argument yesterday (albeit under quite different circumstances).
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

My response is the the arguments used.

But your response was also to a person—a person who deserved more courtesy than she received.

AndrewA: Do you see any tension between the first and last paragraphs of comment #83?

—x—It is completly and utterly irrelevant to me whether or not a person is acting upon desires that are genetic or conditioned, and whether or not the persons involved are enjoying themselves, are in love, are happy, and are completely and utterly satisfied with their relationship. They can be nice people, thoughtful people, caring people, witty people, etc. They can give of themselves to each other self sacrificially. All irrelevant.

—x—I’m downright polite compared to when I was cutting my teath on newsgroups at the age of 14.

In the case of other people, only external conduct matters. Even agape is irrelevant. But in the case of your own conduct, we need to consider your actual intention and the context of your own growth.

I’m sure you don’t mean to be inconsistent. But the potential for inconsistency is always ready to sneak up on us, all the more so when we deal harshly with others.

It doesn’t matter how ‘nice’ they are, unrepentant sinners remain unrepentant sinners.  We can brag about how well we meet the standards and be unrepentant of great sin, and we can be guilty of great sin and be repentant.

Those who refuse to admit their actions are sinful, are unlikely to repent of them.  The one who prayed within himself comes to mind.  Rather proud of how nice he was, wasn’t he?

In the case of other people, only external conduct matters. Even agape is irrelevant. But in the case of your own conduct, we need to consider your actual intention and the context of your own growth.

I’m not saying that I’m always perfect or infalliable in the manner in which I choose to draw the line between my expression of how utterly wrong and absurd I regard an argument to be and my feelings towards a person as a person.  No doubt I’ve fallen short of the mark many times, and I’m sorry to Grace if that is the case in this discussion.

Hi Grace,

RE: “Guys, I need to affirm here that I"m not in favor of opening a pandora’s box, and suggesting the church bless everything from polyamory to pedophilia.”

Right.  Sadly, you are merely for redefining marriage and society’s blessing and approval solely for one minority sexual desire, and not for any of the other minority, albeit less popular, sexual desires.  It is not surprising—but nonetheless disturbing—to have such open prejudice for certain non-faddish sexual desires expressed while all the while affirming the one that you have personally decided is “a good one.”

RE: “Over the years, I’ve known people who are actually evangelical who would affirm same-sex relationships . . . “

I am sorry, Grace, but your ability to discern people who are actually “evangelical” or traditional/orthodox has been demonstrated irrefutably on this very blog to be incredibly limited, so much so that I would call it “discernment malpractice.”  For the nearly two years you have commented here you have—in spades—illustrated your own immense confusion and naivete and ignorance of orthodoxy or anything remotely approaching traditional belief—and that’s even if we grant your opinion that sexual practice is not particularly important [at least, the sexual practices that you deem “okay”].  You’ve decided that Jeffrey John, Mad Priest and various other such luminaries—all of them are, to you, “traditional believers.”

So no—I don’t grant your statement one bit. 

Just a few of the examples of your “discernment malpractice” from StandFirm alone are below:

William, what evidence is there that Bishop Katherine denies the unique divinity of Jesus Christ? I honestly did not get this impression at all from reading her Christmas message. What leads you to believe in this way?

You’re misjudging him, Greg.  Fr. Jake’s a good man, and is committed to our Lord. And, so are you really. This whole situation is just so sad for your church, and as a witness to the gospel.

But, in truth, both Mother Kaeton, and Jerry Falwell would have agreed concerning the gospel, Jesus died for our sins, and was raised again for our justification… . . . I have to still defend Mother Kaeton. God knows I don’t know her well at all. But, all my encounters with her over on her blog have been gracious and caring, even if we disagreed.

In the past, she has done so much to minister to people suffering from AIDS, and I believe despite everything this woman really does have a heart for reconciliation, and is caring and compassionate.

In her blog, she states that she is an orthodox Christian with an evangelical spirit. I’m just believing her until Mother Kaeton shares otherwise.  I think we should all make every effort to think the best of each other, and try to understand.

Fr. Matt,

Does Bonnie Anderson deny that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, or reject the church’s teaching concerning the divinity of Jesus? How does this Scriptural teaching apply to her? I don’t understand.

Why shouldn’t these folks realize their unity in Jesus, try to understand, and reach out to one another?

Guys, I don’t know why Fr. Johnathan publishes some of these objectionable pictures, and comments either. Sometimes, I wonder, “What can he be thinking?”

But, despite everything, deep down, I sense this man truly does have a heart for God. In his own way, he cares about gay and lesbian people, those who are marginalized, and wants to reach out.

I think there is more to our brother than what is there just on the surface. I don’t want to see him put down, and thrown away here. I’m saddened by it.

Such malpractice of discernment doesn’t make you a bad person, or even not a Christian.  But it does make you a person with simply appallingly bad decision making and analysis skills regarding those who do and who do not believe and promote the gospel.  I frankly couldn’t trust you to discern a heretic if he were named Arius or Pelagius. 

Grace, I am not a “fellow Christian” with the likes of Bishop Jefferts Schori, as she does not believe the same gospel I do.  I take her at her words, frankly and repeatedly and publicly stated.  Her gospel is a grotesque parody of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and she is a false teacher, about whom Holy Scripture is quite clear as to her status.

What you want is to take two people who both believe utterly opposing and antithetical gospels entirely—and then *pretend* as if they are fellow believers because they do nice things and seem really nice [at least to you] and claim that they are Christians.  I am sorry that you are so self-deceived as it is unlikely that such ability to self-deceive extends into many areas of life and not simply the church.

And so I return to my original point:

“Of course . . . we’re not at all unified in Jesus Christ around His gospel.  Manifestly we are not unified.

And manifestly we do not share the same gospel.

Hence. . . .the disunity within the Episcopal Church.

No, Grace—we are not unified around Christ.

I don’t hold anything against those folks above whom you maintain are “traditional Christians” or “evangelical” [sic].  I’m actually perfectly fine with their claiming to be Christians and using various theological concepts and words that they’ve evacuated of meaning and into which they’ve inserted their own preferred meanings.  Everyone is free to claim that they are anything they please—it’s a free country, and none of us are limited as to which words we may use and which we may not.  All of us can form our lips, teeth, and tongue into various syllables and vowels and proclaim ourselves anything at all—I am free, for instance, to proclaim myself a blonde Buddhist.

The only thing that needs to change is that people who don’t adhere to organizational standards need to no longer be in that organization.  Those who claim that they are blonde Budhists, for instance, yet do not believe in the four Noble Truths, should not be in an organization of Buddhists who believe in the Four Noble Truths.  That’s all—nothing really important except that people who believe in mutually opposing truth claims shouldn’t be in the same organization. In fact I would never have known about or concerned myself with these folks had they not happened to be in the same organization. 

Just as an fyi, the disunity and thus conflict in The Episcopal Church will continue—and grow and grow and grow.  Ultimately it will implode and those who hold their particular gospel will be in an entirely different organization from those who believe the Gospel of Christ.

I am thankful for that future reality.

Sarah, what you said, in bunches!  Saved me a lot of typing and searching for Grace’s previous comments over 2 years.

Iranaeus, I take “constitutional” as meaning by nature of being, as one refers to a person’s overall bodily health, resistance to illness, vitality, and inherited characteristics as their “constitution”, literally, that of which one is made up or constituted, which can only be acquired genetically.  If you have a different definition I’d be interested to read it.  If Grace is at all consistent with her comments here over time, she has no clear idea of its meaning herself, but is simply repeating half-remembered flimsy revisionist arguments against the “clobber passages”.  By referring to them as such, she conveniently rules them off-limits in the argument (and also conveniently ignores Gagnon’s definitive defense of the traditional interpretation of those passages), leaving the rest of Scripture as something she can claim belief in and having authority.

Genetic predisposition no more excuses homosexual relationships than it does alcoholism or any other sin and destructive behavior.  Our genetic predispositions are all warped in some way by the Fall, which revisionists also refuse to acknowledge, and in whose camp Grace squarely places herself by defending “constitutional” behavior, despite her protestations of orthodoxy and Evangelicalism.  God is stronger than genetic predispositions, and will grace us to live holy in spite of them if we ask Him to.  I did not “reflexively” use the it’s-not-genetic argument.  I chose intentionally to answer the argument Grace implicitly made, rather than one she did not make.

I have referred to Grace in the 3rd person since she has once again “gracefully” exited another discussion having ignored all rebuttals made to her arguments while changing the subject, a classic revisionist tactic, perhaps used “reflexively” having learned it from the revisionists she follows, including +KJS who personally received Grace into TEC, to her great joy.  Grace, if you return here I will be happy to address you directly and would be happy to hear my points and others’ answered directly in return.  Evasion does not become you, no matter how “gracefully” and pleasantly practiced.

Hey, guys, I can’t stay on the internet very long tonight, but will try to hang out longer tomorrow, and respond to some of the comments.

My son is hoping to be accepted into a mission org. called YWAM, for their fall session, and needs the computer. Appreciate your prayers.

Sarah, I think you’ve misunderstood what I’m saying. As far as I can humanly know, all the people I mentioned in those previous comments are Christian believers. I stand by my remarks, unless shown to be wrong. But, no, I don’t believe any of them are conservative evangelicals, though. We’re talking past each other.

I’m concerned for sound teaching, too in the church. What Christian believer isn’t? But, my heart is more for conversion, or to see people ensnared in heresy to return to faith, not to be driven from the church.

Sarah, their hearts will be hardened all the more in unbelief, and their teaching, and influence will not go away because they’ve left TEC, or any denomination for that matter. Love doesn’t give up on people.

Are you feeling I’m off base in this?

Plus, I have to stand by what I’m saying in being careful of the distinction between serious heresy, and simply a disagreement relating to the interpretation, and application of the Scripture.. or a difference in emphasis.

I agree with you, for instance, that someone who rejects the unique divinity of Jesus Christ, the reality of the incarnation, is not a Christian believer. But, where can it be shown that folks like Fr. Terry, or our brother, Fr. Johnathan from Britian, have ever done this. How have they denied the cross of Christ?

I can’t see it, Sarah.

Grace,
Honestly.  If you still “can’t see it” after the comments above, then there is no seeing it for you.

Grace, I suggested in a reply to a comment of yours sometime ago that to see how the luminaries deny essential Christian doctrine you have to do your homework.  Few of them will come right out and acknowledge in so many words their real beliefs because they know the sheep would flee en masse in terror if they did.  KJS has become much more polished and subtle than when she was first elected PB.

Giles Fraser for one, annually at Easter denies the substitutionary atonement, comparing the idea that the Father would require the sacrifice of the Son to atone for humanity’s sin to cosmic child abuse.  For starters try Google searches on “Fraser Giles easter”, “Jefferts Schori doctrine”, “Jefferts Schori theology”, and ignore the links to virtueonline.

More thorough presentations are especially the hard work of Matt Kennedy+ in some excellent series on SFIF, well researched and documented with links to primary sources in TEC revisionists’ own words.  Some links:

KJS’ infamous NPR interview after her installation with links to the audio (link broken - cannot find audio after several Google searches) as well as a transcript:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/1384/

The Presiding Bishop’s Top Five (Heresies):
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/1503

A more detailed piece on KJS and the Pelagian heresy:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/1425/

Has the Episcopal Church been “Falsely Accused”?
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/1079
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/1085
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/1090
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/1093
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/1105
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/1116

A “live performance” by KJS at a Q&A in DioMS and the usual boilerplate from her in response to questions that probe a little more deeply than the usual softballs wafted her way:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/19526

For a classic example of the Lectionary omitting objectionable passages (contrast that with Jesus “Scripture cannot be broken”)as well as of KJS’ subtle mis-interpretation of Scripture so as to turn (among other things) the Gospel of salvation from sin by Jesus’ sacrifice into the social gospel, read this carefully:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/2482

Robert Gagnon has done definitive work on the “clobber passages” you wish to scissor out of the Bible.  I suggest you read his analysis and compare it with what you read on the website you recommend:

Robert Gagnon’s website:
http://www.robgagnon.net/

What the Evidence Really Says about Scripture and Homosexual Practice: Five Issues
http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homosexScripReallySays.doc.pdf

A YouTube video of Gagnon defending the “clobber passages”:
http://vodpod.com/watch/1167771-robert-gagnon-on-homosexuality-and-the-bible

Well, Grace, don’t say no one ever told you ever again!