Thursday, September 2, 2010

Welcome to Stand Firm!

Want to advertise on Stand Firm? Click here for rates and info

Fish in a Barrel from the Diocese of Washington

Wednesday, September 23, 2009 • 10:26 am


Reader "Pigeon" sent me a link to the September 2009 newsletter from the Diocese of Washington. Pigeon directed my attention to one particular item, but as I looked through the newsletter I realized I was looking at a near-perfect distillation, in 16 pages, of everything that is wrong with the Episcopal Church. There's an obsessive fixation on all things gay; there's cluelessness about the real nature of the struggles in the church; there's more gay stuff; there's condescension to conservatives that wouldn't be tolerated if displayed toward liberals; there's naked, amateurish syncretism; and much much more.

On page 1, there's this photo of the Simple Country Bishop™ in Exceedingly Tacky Vestments at the Integrity Eucharist:



On page 2 there's Bishop Chane's reflections on General Convention, which included this:
We generally seemed to like and respect one another, even in our disagreements. If anything can be said about this General Convention, it is that we really listened to one another and there was a genuine concern and caring for others and their opinions that I have not seen before in the House of Bishops.

He neglects to mention that most of the people with whom he had genuine disagreements are gone, and the few that are left have decided that debate isn't worth the effort. It's easy to listen to one another when you're all saying the same thing.

On page 3 there's an article that begins:
The efforts of the dioceses of Washington and Maryland to establish a liturgical feast day for civil rights pioneer and former Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall moved closer to
fruition at the Episcopal Church's General Convention in July. In Resolution B020, sponsored by Bishop John Bryson Chane, the convention "called upon the Standing Commission of Liturgy and Music to
add Marshall to the liturgical calendar of this church now." The word "now" was added to the resolution by the convention's Committee on Prayer Book, Liturgy and Church Music, to underscore its desire to have Marshall's name added without delay.


On page 5, just two pages before the article headlined "Convention adopts much-reduced budget," is an interview with the rector of a church who responds to a question about the effect of national issues on his parish by saying:
We lost parishioners after the General Convention six years ago. That was really a tough time. We lost a junior warden who was very active in our vestry – he was instrumental in the reconstruction of the church after it was heavily damaged in the 2002 tornado that destroyed much of La Plata – and we’ve lost other members of the parish. It’s tough coming up with a balance between having an honest conversation and obsessing about an issue such as homosexuality, how one relates to a more traditional understanding of biblical authority.


On page 8 there's this lovely photo:



...and, continuing the theme of Exceedingly Tacky Worship, Katharine Schori presiding at a Eucharist, complete with what appears to be children, forced to perform Horrible Liturgical Dance:



...and the Simple Country Bishop™ again, doing the work of the Lord, this time protesting on behalf of a labor union against Disney over a contract dispute:



There's the article on how to choose a children's Bible. The first piece of advice is:
Most children's Bibles have pictures that are of poor quality, cartoonish or silly. This is often because more children's Bibles are published by conservative Christian publishers that focus on conveying the facts and the moral lesson of the story instead of opening the Scriptures to children in a way that engages them in a process of learning about God.

Yes, can't have those conservatives and their pesky facts and moral lessons. No, even children must be "engaged" in a "process."

On page 11, there's the "Monthly Meditation" in which we're treated to this introduction to "Crone Power":
A crone is an old woman. A crone is a witch. A crone is a wise woman. Which one will you be, my friend? Which one I?

What is the female equivalent of 'elder statesman?' A woman of a certain age will be described as "although she is in her 60s or 70s, she is still attractive." But why although? How about, "because she is in her 70s or 80s, she shows dignity and beauty." Instead, there are mother-in-law jokes galore, and, generally speaking, older women are relegated to the sidelines.

So what is the cure? What is the solution? For what do women's hearts cry out?

Well, let's see... we have women, we have baby boomers, we have liberal Episcopalians. That can mean only one thing.

That's right - a Wiccan liturgy!
Seven of us stand in a circle. One lights a candle and puts it on a center table. We take turns reading the poem Woman's Work by Maya Angelou as a sign of solidarity with all women. We then invite our newest crone-to-be into the circle.

She tells us of the phases of her life up until now. The others ask her:

"What is it you are seeking for this phase of your life as a crone?"

She answers: "I seek wisdom."

We say in unison: "Mothering God, grant her Crone Wisdom."

We ask: "Beside wisdom, what is it you are seeking?"

She answers: "I seek judgment."

We reply: "Mothering God, grant her Crone Judgment."

Finally we ask: "Besides wisdom and judgment, what is it you are seeking?"

She says: "I seek Joy."

We respond: "Mothering God, grant her Crone Joy."

We take turns anointing her forehead with special oil and present her with a stole, or wreath, inviting her to go forth into the world and share her Crone power.

We pray:

Eternal Wisdom, source of our being and center of all our longing,

In you our sister has lived to a strong age: A woman of dignity and wit, in loving insight now a blessed crone.

May the phase into which she has entered bear the marks of your spirit.

May she ever be borne up by the fierce and tender love of friends and by You, most intimate friend; and clothed in your light, grow in grace as she advances in years,

For your love's sake.


We conclude our ceremony with a joyous feast we have prepared for each other.

Watch out, world, here we come!

The writer notes that:
"Recipes" for crone rituals abound on the Web. However, insofar as they evoke images of earth mother goddesses, wiccans and pagan rituals, they were not right for us. We build on a proud tradition of accomplished Christian women who, as abbesses, surely qualify for the title of Crone, such as Hild, Ita and Brigid in Celtic times. The 14th century writer Julian of Norwich described God as a Mother. Mother Seton, who had five children when she built the first Catholic schools in North America, was surely a Crone, too. And do not forget Mother Theresa of Calcutta, our modern day saint. We claim Christian sisterhood with each of them.

...yet do a search for "crone" and "wicca" and you get over half a million hits. Search the "Crone liturgy" above for "Jesus," "Christ," or "God" in the masculine form with which Jesus referred to Him, and you get... well... zero hits. So much for Christian sisterhood, or for that matter Christian anyhood. Something also tells me that Mother Seton, Mother Theresa and perhaps all the other women the author invokes wouldn't necessarily embrace the term "crone" to describe them or their work.

Is there more? You bet.

But I can't take it any more. The whole wretched thing is here for your... uh... "enjoyment."
159 Comments • Print-friendlyPrint-friendly w/comments  Bookmark and Share
Comments:

The crone (Wicca) article is by Helma Lanyi, a parishioner at St. Alban’s, DC. That’s the parish that the new bishop of Georgia is coming from. We know he’s OK with SSBs and open communion. One now wonders what his take on wicca might be.

Suddenly, I hear the sweet strains of “Marching Through Georgia” in my head.

[1] Posted by Ralph on 09-23-2009 at 10:21 AM • top

Greg - from now on please include a warning like: TEC. SICK. [BARF] BAG REQUIRED.

[2] Posted by Festivus on 09-23-2009 at 10:23 AM • top

If you print out any of the pictures, or the Wiccan liturgy, be sure your holy water is well sealed, as combining the two will constitute a fire hazard.

I know the PB is PB of TEC, but what religion, exactly, is she practicing in that photo?

The sample is enough, it being lunchtime, I will not ruin my appetite by reading the whole thing.

[3] Posted by tjmcmahon on 09-23-2009 at 10:31 AM • top

#1 Wiccan liturgy. Great. Can’t wait to see an article like that in the Diocese of Ga newsletter. That will work wonders for attendance.

[4] Posted by gaanglican on 09-23-2009 at 10:39 AM • top

Greg, thanks for passing this along. I took your advice and did indeed read “the whole wretched thing”.
And what a clever demonic deception it is, dressing up a worldly, fleshly agenda in religious garb, made to look like the real thing.
Romans 16:18 came immediately to mind. It makes my heart ache to think about the poor deceived souls who come to this “church”, thinking that they are encountering the bread of eternal life through the risen Lord only to feed on spiritual sawdust which leads to eternal death.

[5] Posted by GSP98 on 09-23-2009 at 10:48 AM • top

Oh dear oh dear.  Witchcraft in the cathedral.  Shame on you Bishop Chane.  Anathema.

[6] Posted by Pageantmaster on 09-23-2009 at 10:55 AM • top

Well, this continues to make ministry in DC easy when the bar is set this low!

“We’re the one that believe in Jesus and the Bible, who you might think of as Christian”

Pretty clear cut distinction, I think.  confused

[7] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 09-23-2009 at 11:11 AM • top

Ugh…

[8] Posted by oscewicee on 09-23-2009 at 11:16 AM • top

Another newsletter for the bird cage.

I sometimes think newletters like these are designed for the specific purpose of driving out reasserters.

[9] Posted by Undergroundpewster on 09-23-2009 at 11:21 AM • top

RE: “complete with what appears to be children, forced to perform Horrible Liturgical Dance . . . “

MY EYES!!!!!  MY EYES!!!!!!!  NOW . . . . WHAT AM I GOING TO DO FOR . . . EYES!!!!!!??????

On a technical note “horrible liturgical dance” is a redundancy, as anyone can see by the picture.

Wow.  How incredibly repulsive that picture is.

[10] Posted by Sarah on 09-23-2009 at 11:21 AM • top

The photo - it’s not about God, it’s theatre, y’all.

[11] Posted by oscewicee on 09-23-2009 at 11:23 AM • top

The EDW has been a Christian wasteland ever since they made Angus Dun a bishop back in the 40s.  Angus Dun did not believe in the Creeds and wanted them ditched.  It’s gone downhill ever since.

[12] Posted by Violent Papist on 09-23-2009 at 11:25 AM • top

It’s funny, but being a Southerner of a certain age I always thought that women aspired to be known as ladies. Gentlemen always treat all women as ladies, but far fewer women actually are ladies. I once overheard two women in a parish hall refer to my grandmother as a great lady. She was never a ‘grand dame’, but she did exemplify the positive aspects of being a lady.

I have never known a woman who wished to be known as a ‘crone’. It reeks of the Wagner, Norse mythology and the opening of MacBeth.

[13] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 09-23-2009 at 11:30 AM • top

subscribing…reluctantly…
Intercessor

[14] Posted by Intercessor on 09-23-2009 at 11:33 AM • top

In the spirit of ecumenism embodied by the Washington newsletter here is a zen koan: “If no cameras are present, does Bishop Robinson exist?”

Off to ponder that one….

[15] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 09-23-2009 at 11:33 AM • top

I haven’t met any women who wanted to be called “crone” either. And when was “crone” recognized as a special state in the church with its own brand of “judgment,” etc.? This stuff is nauseating to me, and I confess to being a woman. Apparently there are women who lap it up like cream, but I find it embarrassingly silly.

[16] Posted by oscewicee on 09-23-2009 at 11:35 AM • top

#13 Oh it’s much more odd!

  * Main Entry: crone
  * Pronunciation: \ˈkrōn\
  * Function: noun
  * Etymology: Middle English, a term of abuse, from Anglo-French caroine, charoine dead flesh — more at carrion
  * Date: 14th century
: a withered old woman
Merriam-Webster Dictionary

...As a character type, the crone shares characteristics with the hag.
Wikipedia

[17] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 09-23-2009 at 11:36 AM • top

#16, Do you think they would allow “curmudgeon” to be recognized as a special state in the church as well?

[18] Posted by Undergroundpewster on 09-23-2009 at 11:38 AM • top

Hmmm, a liturgy for cronyism.  In DC of all places.  Go figure.

wink

[19] Posted by tired on 09-23-2009 at 11:40 AM • top

I think that “crone” is an accurate term for Mrs. Schori and her sistren.  I would not sully the term “lady” in applying it to them.  Let TEC continue its slide into apostasy, wiccan or otherwise.  When the corruption becomes SO rank that no one (save those who participate in it) can ignore it, the re-taking of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America should be all that much easier.  In the meantime, we can pray for those who are ensnared that they will embrace the life-giving Gospel and be “transferred from the dominion of darkness to the kingdom of His beloved Son.” (Col. 1:13)  We weep over them as God weeps over them, even while we hate the sin which has so deformed them.  May God have mercy on us all.

[20] Posted by rwightman+ on 09-23-2009 at 11:45 AM • top

...and AbC wants a two-track/tiered thingy to accommodate this?!?!?!?

Woe.  And I wish, whoa.

[21] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 09-23-2009 at 11:52 AM • top

Being a woman “of a certain age”, or a bit older, I find life a hoot!  I thoroughly enjoy mother-law-jokes, and cartoons & such that show up our silliness. To be able to laugh at myself, to be aware of my irrationality and kookiness, if to be free! I do try, in public at least, to remember that I am a lady and to dress and act like one.  If my private self is a bit off the wall, none of my friends seem to mind. Too bad the church can’t find some way to celebrate just being an older human being with all our foibles…maybe even to honer the wisdom we have acquired through having followed our Lord for so many years.  Frances Scott

[22] Posted by Frances S Scott on 09-23-2009 at 11:53 AM • top

Must every eucharist now be a CLOWN EUCHARIST???
Who taught these people to dress?

[23] Posted by Marty the Baptist on 09-23-2009 at 11:53 AM • top

For me a crone is a stooped skinny figure dressed in raggedy grey clothes with a stick,warts and whiskers
smelling of mildew and scaring children. Even the word is creepy..,won’t be doing any crone meditation round here

[24] Posted by sandraoh on 09-23-2009 at 11:55 AM • top

So ... the Erskine cartoon on page 13.  Is that supposed to be two guys?  A man and a woman?  Or is it simply ambiguous by intent?  I looked at for a while, and decided I couldn’t tell. I give it a 50% probability of being two guys, and a 35% probability of being intentionally ambiguous.  Either way, the idea that homosexual pillow talk is a fit subject for mainstream humor is (shall we say) pushing the envelope.  Unless you know your audience, I guess. 

carl

[25] Posted by carl on 09-23-2009 at 11:56 AM • top

Crone is the new queer.

[26] Posted by Violent Papist on 09-23-2009 at 12:10 PM • top

re Children’s Bibles and this left-handed compliment—“conservative Christian publishers that focus on conveying the facts and the moral lesson of the story .  .  .”

Can you believe anyone would want to focus on FACTS?  Or, even worse, on the MORAL LESSON?

[27] Posted by hanks on 09-23-2009 at 12:10 PM • top

But don’t you dare question their Christianity!  There is NO ... BASIS ... FOR DOING SO!!

[28] Posted by Phil on 09-23-2009 at 12:22 PM • top

This reference to the need to reform children’s “education” should be a warning to anyone with young children.

[29] Posted by Going Home on 09-23-2009 at 12:27 PM • top

Poor Mother Teresa will be startled right off her heavenly perch to learn that she’s a crone. 

Also: why do most gay men have really good taste, but gay Episcopalians such awful taste?

[30] Posted by Nasty, Brutish & Short on 09-23-2009 at 12:30 PM • top

Frances, you bring up a good point - are older men not deserving of recognition and honor as well? Why are only women “honored” (if you can call being initiated as a crone at church an honor)?

[31] Posted by oscewicee on 09-23-2009 at 12:41 PM • top

This would be funny if it weren’t so ... funny. What a bunch of deluded, delusional nonsense. We’re the ones who should be suing them.

[32] Posted by Romkey on 09-23-2009 at 12:43 PM • top

Most children’s Bibles have pictures that are of poor quality, cartoonish or silly. This is often because more children’s Bibles are published by conservative Christian publishers that focus on conveying the facts and the moral lesson of the story instead of opening the Scriptures to children in a way that engages them in a process of learning about God.

That is probably the most disgusting statement I have ever heard from a supposedly Christian church.

the snarkster™

[33] Posted by the snarkster on 09-23-2009 at 12:55 PM • top

God will not be mocked.  These folks are doomed.

[34] Posted by midwestnorwegian on 09-23-2009 at 12:56 PM • top

Thank God I am not in this diocese.  I can’t believe the bishop would allow Trinity Upper Marlboro to have an Oyster and Ham dinner. I thought we were inclusive.  I am staggered.

[35] Posted by David Keller on 09-23-2009 at 12:58 PM • top

Greg is right.  If you paid someone to come up with propaganda ridiculing the absurdities of TEC these days, it would be hard to top this kind of utter nonsense.  Only our revisionist foes fail to get the joke, living in the alternate universe they do.

For me, this newsletter brings to mind the awful truth that God sometimes delivers us into the hands of our sins, and lets us learn the consequences the hard way.  As Paul says in Romans 1:28 (ESV),

“And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.”

David Handy+

[36] Posted by New Reformation Advocate on 09-23-2009 at 01:07 PM • top

So, is this the part where they are “worshipping other idols in the high places and even IN THE TEMPLE”?  Hmmm…seems like it to me.  And I seem to recall that God may have possibly done something about it, like have most of the other major civilizations on the earth attack and kill the Hebrews, leaving just a remnant. 

That doesn’t bode too well for us now, does it?  blank stare

[37] Posted by B. Hunter on 09-23-2009 at 01:17 PM • top

Wouldn’t want a Sunday School that focuses on “conveying the facts and the moral lesson of the story.”

Someone needs to tell these people that they can’t take God out of worship and then sell it as entertainment.  The market for low-quality low-price theatrics is diminishing, and shrinks considerably each time something like this is produced.  Either hire a professional writer, choreographer, dancers, orchestra, and charge $40 at the door, or go home.

[38] Posted by Michael D on 09-23-2009 at 01:20 PM • top

“Most children’s Bibles have pictures that are of poor quality, cartoonish or silly. This is often because more children’s Bibles are published by conservative Christian publishers that focus on conveying the facts and the moral lesson of the story”

Aside from the gratuitous insult therein, just how does the conclusion follow from the premise?

[39] Posted by Violent Papist on 09-23-2009 at 01:29 PM • top

Fish in a barrel indeed.

BTW, Greg how is SFIF observing today as Celebrate Bisexuality Day?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebrate_Bisexuality_Day

Peace,
-ms

[40] Posted by miserable sinner on 09-23-2009 at 01:30 PM • top

“The Rev. Linda L. Grenz joined Good Shepherd as our Interim Rector in August, 2008.  She has served the Church in a wide range of roles since her ordination in 1977. She recently served as an Assisting Priest at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York City. In 1995 she founded and served as Publisher and CEO of LeaderResources, a consulting and publishing organization serving the Episcopal Church. This has given her extensive experience in consulting with congregation, leading conferences and writing. Prior to that she was the national staff officer for adult education, lay ministry and leadership development for the Episcopal Church, taught at the General Theological Seminary and served in a number of churches in Massachusetts, New Jersey, Delaware. Her husband, Del Glover, recently served as the Chief Administrative officer of the Riverside Church in NYC. He is an active Episcopal layman and a member of Executive Council, the governing board of the Episcopal Church. His son, Christopher is a teacher who lives in DC; younger son, Jonathan, is a lawyer who lives in Philadelphia.”

[41] Posted by Violent Papist on 09-23-2009 at 01:31 PM • top

Is Ray Bradbury available to make a SciFi TV series out of this?

[42] Posted by Passing By on 09-23-2009 at 01:39 PM • top

Several notes:

Page one—besides the exceedingly tacky vestments (since when has orange been a liturgical color?), is anyone else curious about the host? It’s like the size of a pancake!  Also, what are the red bowls to Mr. Robinson’s left (viewer’s right)?

Page five—I believe they need to reexamine the “balance” they’ve come up with for obsessing and not obsessing about homosexuality and its impact on their ecclesial community.

Page eight—is it me, or do the “props” substituting for an altar and candles not look like some sort of cartoon dinner table? Moreover, why are there people staring out of the backdrop behind Mrs. Schori?  And finally, why is there a Trinitarian symbol (or cross) on the backdrop, since Mrs. Schroi has indicated she rejects both the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of Christ’s atonement for individuals?

Also on page eight—perhaps it should pass unremarked, but one could ask why no “liberal Christian publishers” print Bibles. Perhaps it could be that there are none? Or, perhaps it is that liberals don’t actually study the Bible?

And, finally, the Crones:

• “A crone is a witch.” A declaration of apostasy, true? At the very least, a declaration of unrepentant sin.

• The female equivalent of an elder statesman would, to my mind, seem to be “an elder stateswoman,” or, if one doesn’t mind complicated politically-correct jargon, one could say, “an elder statesperson.”

• Traditionally, women who’s husbands died would take vows and join a women’s spiritual community—you know, a nunnery—wedding themselves to Christ through chastity, obedience, and poverty. Of course, I can see why those three things wouldn’t exactly fly in an Episcopal ecclesial outpost.

• Perhaps instead of invoking the powers of witchcraft upon a woman, they could pray a Rosary? Ok, ok, too Popish of me. How about just a prayer to Jesus for an increase in wisdom, judgment, and joy? Heck, we could even write up a liturgy for it. Just take this one and delete the word “crone.”

• Who empowered these people to anoint someone and be-stole them? Last time I checked, that required “ordination,” even in the Episcopal ecclesial community.

• Honestly, the closing prayer—so long as you delete the word “crone”—could be ok. Might help to add “Through Christ our Lord” at the end, but still.

• I imagine that Blessed Teresa of Calcutta—who worked with women oppressed by a religious system that embraces pagan-style polytheism and withcraft—would not appreciate being called a crone (remember: “A crone is a witch.”).  At all.

• All we can do is pray.

• “Our Lady, exemplar of women, pray for these women, that they may find their identity in your Son and none other. Through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.”

• “Blessed Teresa of Calcutta, pray for these women, that, like you, they may know the True and Eternal Wisdom who is the Light of the World. Through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.”

• “Almighty God, hear our prayers and the prayers of your blessed Mother and blessed Teresa of Calcutta, and grant them according to your will. Through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.”

• “Lord Jesus Christ, you came into this world to free us from oppression from sin and death: grant grace to enable all those for whom you died to embrace true repentance, especially us your servants and especially these people whom we see overtaken by doubt, sin, and self-consumption. Liberate them, and us, and bring us all to that heavenly County, where you, with your Father and the Holy Spirit, live and reign forever and ever. Amen.”

[43] Posted by Diezba on 09-23-2009 at 01:41 PM • top

I think we may be missing some of the richness and possibilities presented by this…. publication. For example, a line of Episcopal Christmas cards (see, the irony is already delicious) aimed at “ladies of certain age” which could include tag lines such as: “Wishing you warm season’s greetings and Crone joy!”

My dear great-grandmother (God grant her rest), a woman who walked to Mass in the snow well into her 80s, would have used her purse to give a good beating around the head and neck to anyone who could her a crone. Probably anyone referring to Elizabeth Anne Seton as one, too.

Voltaire is rumored to have said, “I have prayed only one prayer in my life, ‘God, make my enemies ridiculous.’ And God granted it.” Somehow that works here.

[44] Posted by TWilson on 09-23-2009 at 01:45 PM • top

Would it be impolite to suggest that “crone” is a perfectly appropriate word to use in describing KJS? Certainly not in the Diocese of Washington!

[45] Posted by Romkey on 09-23-2009 at 01:50 PM • top

Their little liturgy needs some serious revision.  They completely forgot the numerical modifiers!  She got Crone Wisdom, but what…. Crone Wisdom +5?  +10?  Also, they should consider rounding out the character attributes.  Such a concentration on WIS/JUD might be ok for group play, but if she finds herself in a solo situation, she might seriously miss some STR, or AGI.

[46] Posted by markwark on 09-23-2009 at 01:56 PM • top

The liturgy with KJS looks like something from the original Star Trek—weird tacky sixties ideas of “the future”—yikes!

[47] Posted by DavidSh on 09-23-2009 at 02:08 PM • top

Hasn’t anyone told The Simple Country Bishop that orange is NOT a liturgical color?

[48] Posted by Newbie Anglican on 09-23-2009 at 02:10 PM • top

The Crone Ranger ....

[49] Posted by Anglican Observer on 09-23-2009 at 02:47 PM • top

For those who were not present at these events and did not have the chance to see them in person and/or up close, an explanation follows:

Bishop Robinson’s vestments are what are called “festal” or “festival” Eucharistic vestments.  Many parishes have them and they are usually used for high holy days such as Christmas, Easter, All Saints Day, etc. (My parish has a set that utilizes the multicolored brocade fabric with a predominance of golds, whites and reds.  We bought them from Almy and they refer to the fabrics generally as tapestry with either red or green predominating.)

Bishop Robinson is holding up the large “priest’s host” that is available from most supply houses.  It is scored to break into 24 pieces.  It is intentionally large in order to be seen from a distance in a large facility.  We use the 12 person version on Sundays….the nave is deep enough that those in the back can’t tell what the priest is elevating unless it is of adequate size to be seen.

The projected images behind the altar at the General Convention services provide the equivalent of a dossal or a stained glass window. 

The altar, lectern, Eucharistic candles, torches, processional cross etc. were built for use at General Conventions.  The proportions are designed to be used in exhibit halls such as those where convention Euchrists are held.  With 3 to 4 thousand worshipers at the daily Eucharists and about 8 thousand at the Sunday UTO ingathering Eucharist, the facilities have to be large enough to accommodate the size of the congregation.

The vestments worn by those who participated in the GC Eucharists were designed and made by Almy and donated to the church.

The liturgical dancers were not forced to do anything.  They clearly enjoyed what they were doing.  We were blessed to have folks of native ancestry and Latino/a heritage share with us some of their liturgical customs.  Various parts of worship took place in Asian languages, French, Spanish and a native Hawaiian tongue.  Some services sounded like the Day of Pentecost with so many different tongues all praising God.

Bruce Garner
Atlanta, Member of Executive Council

[50] Posted by Bruce Garner on 09-23-2009 at 02:50 PM • top

We know what festival vestments are, Bruce.  And those are some ugly ass festival vestments.

[51] Posted by Nasty, Brutish & Short on 09-23-2009 at 02:54 PM • top

I think I will hold out for the Michael Moore feast day.

[52] Posted by Cousin Vinnie on 09-23-2009 at 02:55 PM • top

Perhaps I’ll be deleted or admonished for this but…..
My first thought regarding the opening picture of TSCB is, since when do they wear vestments to bless the pancake breakfast…
My second thought was, nice orange vestments. Are the different patch shades supposed to be flames?

[53] Posted by Mike L on 09-23-2009 at 03:06 PM • top

Greg,

If you ever watched Mythbusters, you would know that it’s almost impossible to shoot fish in a barrel. And I thought you were a cultured person. smile

[54] Posted by Sarha7nj on 09-23-2009 at 03:09 PM • top

The use of the word “crone”  to mean revered elder, wise one, etc. is now used widely. It is discussed much in a variety of sites aimed at women’s concerns. The old meanings of the word are being transformed.  See the following:
http://www.yoni.com/crone.shtml
Also described in Crone Magazine, as “women coming of age etc.”, at http://www.cronemagazine.com/
And used by Helen Redman: Birthing the Crone: aging into full creativity:  http://www.birthingthecrone.com/./
Thee are many sites now dealing with the new (or revived) use of the term “crone” to mean a wise, respected senior woman.

To Bruce Garner, No. 50 - Thanks for the helpful information in your comment. I appreciate it greatly, as I do the Diocese of Washington and its Washington Window newspaper.
St James

[55] Posted by St. James on 09-23-2009 at 03:34 PM • top

If one were to able to reduce the sound of one hand clapping to words, it would read very, very much like this:

We generally seemed to like and respect one another, even in our disagreements. If anything can be said about this General Convention, it is that we really listened to one another and there was a genuine concern and caring for others and their opinions that I have not seen before in the House of Bishops.

[56] Posted by Jackie on 09-23-2009 at 03:36 PM • top

At this past June’s United Methodist annual conference in these parts (Central PA), the bishop displayed a stole presented to her by the most rural district in the conference.  It was blaze orange on the one side and camo on the reverse.  On the camo side there was an embroidered antlered deer on the left and a brook trout on the right.

The district just wanted to make sure the bishop had proper vestments for their local high holy days (opening day of fishing season in the spring, and the opening day of deer season in the fall).

[57] Posted by Ron Troup on 09-23-2009 at 03:37 PM • top

My 1933 Oxford Dictionary defines ‘crone’
1. A withered old woman
2. An old ewe
No mention of witch.

My 1998 Merriam-Webster Crossword dictionary lists witch and hag as a synonym for crone.

That wicca is making inroads into TEC is not unexpected, considering their departure from holiness of life. 

Delving into the occult and gnosticism is seeking power and control and it is sorcery, a dangerous spiritual activity, which God expressly forbids.

Power and mercy belongs to God.  Psalm 62:11-12 We must trust His power not seek it for ourselves.

God also forbids entering into pagan worship, which is idolatry.  God requires ALL our hearts and ALL our worship and ALL our trust.

[58] Posted by Floridian on 09-23-2009 at 03:42 PM • top

The use of the word “crone”  to mean revered elder, wise one, etc. is now used widely

#55 Santiago, let me tell you, you and I move in wildly different circles. The nearest to “crone” that I have ever heard said is Kronenbourg.

Crony, Cronies and Cronyism I have also heard and seen. Crone, not so much.

[59] Posted by driver8 on 09-23-2009 at 03:45 PM • top

Hi - I sort of monitor this site to get the Conservative Anglican point of view. I was really tempted to just let this one go but I am genuinely interested, what place if any do gay people have in the Conservative wing of the Episcopal church.

Should gay people even have a place at all?

I must admit from an outsider’s perspective some of the posts here do give the impression that it is a case of using the bible to justify pre-existing prejudice. Since Jesus himself at no stage to my understanding condemned gay people why does the conservative church?

Would the church prefer gay men to live as straight men and repress their true nature?

What is the solution from the churches point of view?

[60] Posted by cbr1100fan on 09-23-2009 at 03:47 PM • top

#61 Read Robert Gangnon’s essays (http://www.robgagnon.net). Then come and ask again.

(Not fobbing you off just pointing to a resource that will help direct your questions).

[61] Posted by driver8 on 09-23-2009 at 03:50 PM • top

#52- or perhaps the feast of Al Franken.

[62] Posted by via orthodoxy on 09-23-2009 at 03:54 PM • top

Thanks this is an interesting site. I will have a close look over the nex few days. So Mr Gangnon speaks for all those here? Is his work endorsed directly by the Church or is it just his point of view? Is there some document or church website that docments this endorsement?

[63] Posted by cbr1100fan on 09-23-2009 at 03:58 PM • top

I would like to see the OED entry on “crone” as a wise woman. Seriously. St. James, your links appear to go to the same type of folks who created this “liturgy” - no way is that usage mainstream.

[64] Posted by oscewicee on 09-23-2009 at 04:00 PM • top

cbr1100fan,

Our position, and the one we think the church should hold, is well-known.

As far as how gay people should live their lives, they should live it as anyone else does who has a sin with which they struggle: They should avoid the sin to the extent possible, and when they can’t avoid it, they should repent of it.

There are sins that disqualify a person from leadership in the church. For example, in a properly-run church, those who are known to be involved in an extramarital affair should not be allowed to serve on the vestry. Clergy caught in such affairs should be inhibited and, depending on how they follow their bishop’s discipline, either reinstated or defrocked.

If a gay person wants to engage in homosexual behavior, and not see it as a sin and repent of it, that’s his or her choice. But Christianity is a faith that holds that homosexual behavior is a sin. There’s just no getting around that. To that extent, yes, it is a pre-existing prejudice, just as Christianity holds pre-existing prejudices against lying, stealing, bearing false witness, etc.

He may choose to live a life of sin, but he may not redefine Christianity to suit his lifestyle. He may struggle - as we all do - as a sinner, and meet the rest of us at the foot of the cross to repent and seek forgiveness, but he may not redefine what is sin simply because he feels that he’s right and Christianity is wrong.

Jesus didn’t say anything about crack use, either, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a sin. Jesus didn’t say anything about a whole lot of things that are obviously a sin, but that doesn’t mean they’re not sins. The rule has never been “If Jesus didn’t specifically forbid it, He’s cool with it.” I don’t know where people get that idea.

[65] Posted by Greg Griffith on 09-23-2009 at 04:05 PM • top

#60

What place if any do gay people have in the Conservative wing of the Episcopal church.
Should gay people even have a place at all?
Since Jesus himself at no stage to my understanding condemned gay people why does the conservative church?
Would the church prefer gay men to live as straight men and repress their true nature?

From this layperson’s perspective…
1) Their place in the church is the same as all the rest of us sinners. We just expect them to recognize and attempt to avoid said sin.
2) The so-called conservative church does not condemn gay people. It does condemn sinful behavior, it definitely does not condone or celebrate it.
3) The church would prefer gay men lead holy lives, just like alcoholics, the untruthful, the unfaithful or any other sinner should do. In other words, yes they just may have to repress their “true” sinning nature. Unfortunately since that involves sex, it apparently is easier for the liberal church to declare their sin “not sin”.

[66] Posted by Mike L on 09-23-2009 at 04:08 PM • top

Greg, #65, you have said essentially the same thing numerous times over the past few years.  But you say it so well and so clearly that I appreciate your explanation each time. 

It is all so basic to Christian belief—but people do want to find their way around the need to acknowledge their sin and repent of it.

Thanks.

[67] Posted by hanks on 09-23-2009 at 04:11 PM • top

“If no cameras are present, does Bishop Robinson exist?”

A question doomed never to be answered by experiment.

cbr110, where anywhere in the Bible will you find anything on arson of a dwelling?  Hint: trick question.

[68] Posted by Ed the Roman on 09-23-2009 at 04:13 PM • top

Well, now that Bruce cleared up all the niceties about the liturgical ambience at these festivities, I would like his opinion on orange as a liturgical color.  Really.  That and the use of the mission and evanglelism budget to sue as a means of mission and evangelism.  That and cronyism at 815, too.  There’s so much he could undoubtedly share and make straight the paths before us non-elitist informed rural hicks in fly-over country - unlike them big-city folks in Hotlanta and the crime Capital of the country.

[69] Posted by dwstroudmd on 09-23-2009 at 04:24 PM • top

Is a crone an aging feminist, lesbian, or witch? Those seem to be the genders of preference in TEC, and probably the target audience for wican events. Sounds like a disease to me. Frankly, I wouldn’t want to be associated with the term.

Are you in the crohn’s support group? You look like you should be.

[70] Posted by Dr. N. on 09-23-2009 at 04:28 PM • top

Is his [Mr. Gangnon (sick)} work endorsed directly by the Church or is it just his point of view?

  Depends on which church you mean.  If you mean the Church universal, yes.  If you mean tec (very much little c), then, sadly, the answer is no, but then many similar secular organizations reject biblical teaching also.

[71] Posted by Jackie on 09-23-2009 at 04:31 PM • top

Greg and Mike,
Thankyou for your reply, as I said I am interested in the Churches position from a conservative point of view. I was not really after a justification or Theological argument but more to find out what the actual position of the Church is and whether it is documented.
I am a Secular Humanist so biblical justification for a certain point of view hold no waters with me as I see it as having no authority.  I was more interested in the actual position the Church had and the expectations or behavioural restrictions it places on Gay people within its ranks in order for them to be acceptable members. I am not after an argument or a debate so to speak.
What I am exploring is whether there is any possibility that Secular and Religious communities can co-exist respectfully. The current situation in the Anglican Church would suggest is not an easy to do. To me I do not see why Gay people would want to be part of a religion that vilifies their real nature. To me if someone is a gay man and a Christian it is a contradiction in terms.
I have found what really seams to divide the Secular and Religious communities is not so much what we each think but HOW we each think. To this end I am very disillusioned as I can see no way for both sets of ideas to live side by side respectfully.

[72] Posted by cbr1100fan on 09-23-2009 at 04:34 PM • top

Friends, I have some bad news. During my after-dinner walk, I tested the new “crone-positive” meme, but it failed to create any drag with the relevant customer set. Out of 6 people in the target demographic, 66% responded with expletives. The other 2 allowed me to explain that the Episcopal Church thinks rehabilitating the term “crone” is a good idea, and that when I said “crone” I really meant “dignified wise person of a certain age,” and would they like some Eucharistic-substitute raisin cakes? That second, deeper round of encounter produced another bout of expletives, and an attack with a dog leash.

Even with such a small sample set, I think I’ll move on to see if I get better traction with terms in similar need of rehabilitation like “crank”, “thug” or “tramp.”

[73] Posted by TWilson on 09-23-2009 at 04:42 PM • top

The word “now” was added to the resolution by the convention’s Committee on Prayer Book, Liturgy and Church Music, to underscore its desire to have Marshall’s name added without delay.

I’m picturing an entire committee spending hours discussing how to best polish the resolution, with drafts and counterdrafts and anguished discussion.  Finally, after working long into the night.  Ta Da!  “We’ve decided to add the word ‘now’”.  I’m sure everyone went away with a great sense of accomplishment.

[74] Posted by Dorpsgek on 09-23-2009 at 04:43 PM • top

To dwstroudmd:

The mission and evangelism budget was not the source of funds for legal activities.  You have been misinformed.  You can see the budget of the church posted at the website and it shows income and outgo. 

No, orange, per se is not a liturgical color.  But then again, I have seen many vestments in the last 44 years that were not techinically liturgical colors either.  The “tapestry” fabrics offerred by Almy and Whippel are not liturgical colors.  Often they have a predominant color.  And in all honesty, the vestments used at GC would not work well in my parish.  We are a neo-gothic building with very traditional decor, including 7 Tiffany stained glass windows, marble and limestone altar and reredos with retable.  Our vestments are designed by a parishioner who has actually made most of them.  He designed the white set and sent the specifications to Almy for them to make the vestments.  We also have a chancel and apse ceiling that is painted in a vibrant shade of red with blue accents and gold crosses and crowns and fleur de lis (spelling?).  We can not just use any shade of blue, purple, red or green for the larger seasons.  Colors fight with each other so we have to go with different shades than most.

The types of vestments used at GC are rather popular with churches who have very contemporary naves and sanctuaries.  I learned long ago that ugly, just like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

Bruce

[75] Posted by Bruce Garner on 09-23-2009 at 04:47 PM • top

cbr1100fan,
There is a good way to live side by side respectfully.  If you do not accept what the Church teaches, then do not try to become a leader in the Church!  I respect you and your secular humanism, but I don’t agree with it.  I may try to persuade you to become a Christian, with the understanding that you and I agree to a fair and frank mutual exchange of views where anger and personal attacks have no place. 
Christianity does not “vilify” the real nature of homosexual persons.  I believe that Christianity is the only religion to really understand their “real” nature as people created in the image of God.  I believe that it is the secular world that vilifies their nature by reducing it to their carnal desires.
We are created for infinite happiness.  We were created to live and function on God’s agape love, not on our own desires.  So, like a sports care that we designed run on high octane fuel, we will run bad fuel, but we will not run well.
It is possible to have mutual forebearance and respect for each other.  I will allow you to have your say in how our culture and society is run if you will allow me to have mine.  I will not vilify you as a force of evil if you will not do so to me.  I will not seek to stop your voice in the public square if you do not seek to stop mine.  Your attitudes and voice are formed from your “religious” views that man is alone on this earth and all that we see and can touch is what matters.  Effectively there is no God that determines moral from immoral, right from wrong, beneficial from nonbeneficial - society is what determines that and each society can determine for itself what is best for it.
My views and voice will be formed from my Christian life and religious outlook where we are designed with a purpose in life and that there is an ultimate truth that and ultimate good that we should strive for and we should order our society towards that truth.  Now the United States is not a theocracy and I do not want a theocracy.  When you mix religion and government you get bad versions of both.  But I want a society that reflects my religious views (as you want one that reflects your secular humanist views).  I believe that we should both be allowed to voice our views and work for their adoption.

How does that sound to you?

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

[76] Posted by Philip Snyder on 09-23-2009 at 04:50 PM • top

I think the expectation of every follower of Jesus is that we, by grace, conform our lives to his commands. Because we are fallen and our sin nature, though defeated, still resides, that often means acting against deep, powerful and perhaps even genetically predisposed impulses and desires…like, say, the heterosexual male desire for promiscuous sex or the alcoholic son of an alcoholic’s desire for a drink…but these sacrifices are the cost of discipleship and we are told to count it up before we follow.

[77] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 09-23-2009 at 05:02 PM • top

cbr1100fan

Those of us who are “conservative” often possess views that are in some areas liberal, or at least moderate. Most of the people here are Christian and are part of families that have been Christian for generations. My family has been in mainline protestant denominations since the beginnings of the Reformation, and before that were Roman Catholic. TEC left my family, but we have not left the Church.

I expect most at Stand Firm were very welcoming to the GLBT community and those of diverse liberal beliefs. If it were not for those of traditional Christian beliefs, the GLBT community and liberals would not have been allowed to teach our children, assume offices in our congregations, etc. We were supportive of them, worked along side them, and loved them as brothers and sisters in Christ.

The problem is that unlike our repentance of sin and work towards individual transformation (often without success), congregations have moved militantly to glorify and bless sin and give it power and representation at the highest levels. We see our Bishops blessing pride parades where there is masturbation in front of children, jackhammer Jesus crucifix dildos, baby Jesus butt plugs, etc. Bi-ecclesials, Wiccan services, and hundreds of heresies as collected on threads here and elsewhere. And then, there is the culture of death that murders the unborn for convenience or the “justice” of “women.” The 920,000,000 babies that have been murdered in registered abortions in the world were done with the responsibility of the people(?) who now lead TEC.

This has been very destructive and has pushed families and people with generations of deep faith from the congregations. The Church will survive and is growing rapidly in ACNA and in other traditional areas, such as Africa. Our Lord has a way of growing His Kingdom. The racist comments against African Christians, so prevalent within TEC, are reason alone that this “church” should fail.

There certainly is a place for GLBTs in the conservative congregations, but those congregations are now far more sensitive than to just encourage leadership roles without taking on the discipline of discipleship. If GLBTs and progressive liberals want to rewrite the Bible and dictate the faith, they are best off to stay with TEC and go down with it.

TEC is destroying itself both by its actions to be progressive and by its lies through Episcopal Life and from its pulpits. Although the subject emission from the diocese is troubling, it brings encouragement that more will leave and soon the nightmare of TEC will be over.

These are my humble opinions, and rise from discernment and care for all of God’s children. I hope others here at Stand Firm will enlighten you from their own experiences.

[78] Posted by Dr. N. on 09-23-2009 at 05:20 PM • top

[72] cbr1100fan

I have found what really seams to divide the Secular and Religious communities is not so much what we each think but HOW we each think. To this end I am very disillusioned as I can see no way for both sets of ideas to live side by side respectfully.

I think this is largely correct.  There is no way to co-exist in the public square.  One side or the other is going to be silenced because both sides see it as an essential moral issue.  The presuppositions we possess determine what we believe to be good, right, and true.  That directly affects what we desire regarding the formation of law, and by logical consequence, the behaviors we wish to see compelled by law.  The co-existence you desire assumes that your presuppositions inform the law (i.e. “If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t have one.”)  But that is exactly the source of the conflict - whose presuppositions inform the law, and who gets compelled to act against his conscience in the public square.  There is no possibility of co-existence at that level.  One side will see its presuppositions reflected in the public square.  The other won’t.  The struggle to displace the other side will be continuous, and is without possibility of resolution.

carl

[79] Posted by carl on 09-23-2009 at 05:24 PM • top

Phil
Thank you for your reply, what I have found is that you are correct in that often I will base my morality on a different set of tenants like mutual self interest or the greater good. What is interesting is that often we will end up in a similar place using a different path to get there and interestingly I hold certain moral positions for their own sake not because a god tells me too and with out the need for an eternal reward or threats of post life punishment. I do it for there own sake and behave the same way when no one is looking and without heavenly closed circuit TV to keep me in line.
That said I am more than happy to tolerate the Christian point of view even if I don’t agree as long as you do not, as a result of your view, cause the restriction or limitation of others to live as they choose to. I am happy for you to make tenants for your community and for those who wish to be members but not when those views overflow into the public square and restrict my freedoms.
I think part of the problem is that when god tells someone something you no longer have the ability to entertain a different point of view, even if you don’t end up accepting. The divine revelation cannot be challenged so to speak even if we know the earth is not flat and the sun doesn’t revolve around us…
These are I think the challenges ahead for those who are really seeking tolerant co-existence.

[80] Posted by cbr1100fan on 09-23-2009 at 05:27 PM • top

Carl
Although I am resisting this point of view at this stage many in the Secular Community feel the same way and that religion should be limited by legislation and all privilege it holds be removed such as Tax free status and the right to operate schools.
This is already happening is some parts of Western Europe.

[81] Posted by cbr1100fan on 09-23-2009 at 05:34 PM • top

Such a shame that all those pretty buildings and choral foundations are under control of people like this.  There are still some good clergy and laity left in DC, but I decided awhile ago I couldn’t be a part of it.  Now I just visit for the occassional concert of special musical service, like a mere tourist.

[82] Posted by AndrewA on 09-23-2009 at 05:40 PM • top

Carl
Sorry just one quick point, the error in your point of view is that you wish to impose your point of view on others and what they can do and or the rights they have where allowing gay marriage doesn’t mean you have to marry a man. The outcomes are not of equal effect or consequence. You are limiting the other persons civil rights he is not imposing his on you.

[83] Posted by cbr1100fan on 09-23-2009 at 05:44 PM • top

[81] cbr1100fan

This is already happening is some parts of Western Europe.

Yeah, I wouldn’t be looking to Europe as my North Star to guide me to the future.  One hundred years from now, the Europe we have known for the last 500 years isn’t going to exist.  It hasn’t even the will to reproduce itself - children being voracious consumers of time and money.  The Culture of Self hasn’t time for children.  Europe is fat, rich, weak, and degenerate, and one thing we know for certain is that fat, rich, weak, degenerate things get eaten by strong, hungry, lean, industrious things.

But I expect you are correct.  Religious persecution is coming in this country, and I don’t mean denial of tax benefits.  I will see it before I die, and I turn 50 in one month.

carl

[84] Posted by carl on 09-23-2009 at 05:47 PM • top

[83] cbr1100fan

the error in your point of view is that you wish to impose your point of view on others and what they can do and or the rights they have

That’s what laws do, cbr1100fan.  They impose a point of view.  They compel your behavior whether you like it or not, and prescribe punishment if you breech the boundaries.  The issue is not whether a point of view will be imposed, but which point of view will be imposed.  Your argument assumes the very things I said it would assume in [79].  The law currently proscribes polygamy.  It does not matter if you are a Mormon fundamentalist, or a Muslim.  The law says you may not marry two wives.  This is an imposed point of view - specifically an orthodox Christian point of view. 

The source of the conflict is that you presume certain things when you say ‘Civil Rights’ and I presume other things.  There is not an objective meaning to that phrase.  It is derivative of the presuppositions we bring to the law; derivative of that which we hold to be good right and true.  If I think that what you want to do is evil, I am not bound to tolerate your desire to so act just because you want to act that way.  I can and will move to proscribe it by law and punish you as necessary.  You agree with me on this position. We simply disagree on what behaviors should be prescribed.

carl

[85] Posted by carl on 09-23-2009 at 06:00 PM • top

Carl
You are correct, I sick of young boys committing suicide rather than admitting to being gay to religious parents and Gay people being subjected to electric shock treatment my fundamentalist parents to straighten them out and yes feel these parents should be punished. One of my close friends was found hanging in the garage at 26 because god hated him “because he was gay”.
The problem is Carl sites like http://www.godhatesfags.com and alike. What would you do about these people? Should I tolerate them? Would you if you were gay?
To nail my colours to the mast I am a gay male who has lived as a straight man, have two children and will probably stay that way but if my boys are gay and genetics would suggest their is a chance I will be telling them to be true to them selves and live a gay life.
By opposing gay marriage you are saying we don’t want you to be in a committed, monogamous loving caring relationship, or are you saying they should only live in a way that makes you feel comfortable and for that reason?

[86] Posted by cbr1100fan on 09-23-2009 at 06:17 PM • top

Somebody—Greg, perhaps—has to ‘fess up and explain that Bruce Garner is REALLY just a fictitious personality, conceived by theological reactionaries, in order to mock the banal mind-set and intellectual pverty of TEC.. He can’t be for real—can he???

[87] Posted by bluenarrative on 09-23-2009 at 06:24 PM • top

Bruce, thank you for your informations.  Poor Mark Harris+ got let go as evangelism something or other did he not, whilst the legal funding zoomed upwards?  Perhaps I made a deductive error by association instead of causality.  Oi vey!  The St Ives fund to mitigate the circumstances for poor underfed lawyers should uphold the MDG standard of giving for about a century or so if it garners the same as appropriated to lawsuits by GC and EC.

As to vestment colorations, I should say tacky by Almy and Whippel remains tacky.  We seem to have a mutual inter-related recognition of tacky.

[88] Posted by dwstroudmd on 09-23-2009 at 06:40 PM • top

#88, Mark Harris is still doing whatever he was doing before. I think you are thinking of Father Jake.

[89] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 09-23-2009 at 06:54 PM • top

The picture that gets my attention is the protest march. The expressions on the faces are scary.

[90] Posted by Dr. N. on 09-23-2009 at 06:56 PM • top

#60 asks, “what place if any do gay people have in the Conservative wing of the Episcopal church.”

The question uses the phrase “gay people.” It assumes that there is such a thing, and that the phrase can be precisely defined. Other posts here use that phrase, too.

I’m not sure that there is such a thing as a “gay person.” For sure, there are people. And, there are people with same sex attraction. And, there are people with SSA who choose to have homosexual sex. And there are people who have made that choice, are comfortable with it, and who would go about teaching others that it’s OK. In other words, that sex is nothing more than a recreational activity. The Diocese of Washington seems to have fallen into that trap.

But, to say (without qualification) that there is such a thing as a “gay person” might lead one to believe in what Ryan Sorba calls the “born gay hoax.” There is no known genetic basis for human homosexual practice. And using “gay person” as a label implies that there’s no hope for change.

Scripture acknowledges SSA, or else there wouldn’t be a law against homosexual sex, in and among the other laws on sexual immorality. Jesus affirms the sexual immorality laws without listing them (since His audience is Jewish), and Paul does list them, since his audience is Gentiles. Holy Tradition affirms the sexual morality laws, as well. Not one of the modern Patriarchs has renounced the sexual immorality laws.

Scripture calls people either to marriage and sex with a person of the opposite sex, or to celibacy and chastity. There is no positive example of homosexual practice in all of Scripture.

It’s my understanding that the “Conservative wing of the Episcopal church” (whatever that is) simply affirms that homosexual practice is not compatible with the teaching of Scripture. (A lot of other things that human beings do aren’t compatible with the teachings of Scripture, either.)

There’s no teaching of God’s hate. In Scripture, there are people who hate God, but God does not hate His children. Hate is a human attribute.

Sinners most definitely have a place in the church. On our knees, repentant, pleading for forgiveness, and begging for the strength not to continue in sin. In the short run, it’s much easier to keep on sinning.

#86, may God give you the strength and courage to persevere.

[91] Posted by Ralph on 09-23-2009 at 06:59 PM • top

I just ran http://www.unfaithful.org. unfaithful.org is a link with no current owner; but oh well, it was a nice day for a protest.

[92] Posted by Dr. N. on 09-23-2009 at 07:02 PM • top

cbr1100fan,

Whether or not Christians and secular humanists can live side-by-side respectfully is indeed a very good question.

As long as secular humanists believe that things like gay marriage are fundamental human rights, and that,  by extension, those who refuse to provide services to that end (such as blessing the unions, or hiring out their services as photographers, wedding cake bakers, etc.) are violating those rights; and further that they must be forced to do so on punishment of civil and/or criminal prosecution, then no - the prospects of peaceful coexistence are indeed slim. The reason is that Christians are Christians first, and Americans second. Christians believe that they defy the teachings of their lord at risk of their eternal salvation. I realize this is almost an impossible thing for a secular humanist to believe, but you have to remember that the opposite - subjugating one’s faith in Christ to man-made laws - is an impossible thing for Christians to consider.

I see you’ve brought up Fred Phelps’ lunatic fringe and attempted to paint all Christians with that sick brush. That leads me to believe that either you haven’t done as much observing of this debate as you claim to have done, or you’re here not to have a dispassionate conversation but to provoke people.

You should know that before I went to the Episcopal Church’s General Convention in 2006, a threat was issued on my life and those of several others by Phelps’ people. Phelps and his sick cult do not preach the Christian Gospel, and they do not represent mainstream Christian teaching on sexual morality.

No, God loves fags. He loves them more than we can comprehend. As with everyone who is fallen and sinful, He loves us so much that He sent his only begotten son, to die on a cross for our sins so that we may be saved.

Reading further down, I see that you’ve “nailed your colours to the mast,” and to say I’m not surprised is an understatement to say the least.

You write:

By opposing gay marriage you are saying we don’t want you to be in a committed, monogamous loving caring relationship, or are you saying they should only live in a way that makes you feel comfortable and for that reason?

Well, to your first point, yes, we want you to be in a “committed, monogamous loving caring relationship,” but not with another man. It doesn’t matter how committed, monogamous, loving, and/or caring your relationship is, all those things are secondary to the fact that it is not what Christianity teaches is acceptable.

I realize that’s maddening for you to hear, but there we are. What gays so often fail to realize, though, is that they’re not the only ones for whom Christian teachings on morality - sexual and otherwise - are maddening to hear. Do you think you’re the only one whose innate desires have ever run afoul of what the Bible says? We all have desires from which we gain extreme pleasure, that run completely counter to what the Bible teaches. Welcome to the club. The difference between us and you, though, is that we don’t think the church should change its teaching on adultery, or gluttony, or whatever our signature sin, happens to be; yet homosexuals do.

[93] Posted by Greg Griffith on 09-23-2009 at 07:05 PM • top

Dr. N.,

I think the URL is http://disneyisunfaithful.org

[94] Posted by Greg Griffith on 09-23-2009 at 07:06 PM • top

Aj, if you go to disneyisunfaithful.org you will find this organization, their arrests, etc., and lots more pictures of the simple country bishop. Lovely.

[95] Posted by Dr. N. on 09-23-2009 at 07:07 PM • top

[86] cbr1100fan

The problem is Carl sites like [Fred Phelps’ website] and alike.

OK, first things first.  The website you listed belongs to Fred Phelps.  There is no one - and I do mean no one - on this site that has any use for Fred Phelps.  He gets a lot of play in the media because he is so extreme, and so offensive, and frankly I think the media wants to tar people like me with his image.  But I have no trouble repudiating him, and for reasons that go waaaay beyond what can be seen in that website. 

What would you do about these people? Should I tolerate them?


I would ignore them.  Really what influence does Fred Phelps have?  Who listens to him?  He in fact aids your cause because you can present me as a variation of him.  Most of what he does isn’t illegal.  The stuff he does at funerals is egregious, and should be made illegal.  But the ‘God Hates Fags’ stuff isn’t illegal, and you would be hard-pressed to prove to me any connection between suicide and an irrelevancy like Phelps.

I sick of young boys committing suicide rather than admitting to being gay to religious parents ...


You can’t blame suicide on ‘religious parents.’  Parents are not morally obligated to reverse their judgment of behavior under threat of suicide.  The morality of the behavior stands on its own.  Nor are they responsible if someone commits suicide because approval is withheld.  The man who kills himself makes his own choice.  Nor is the ‘religious’ adjective appropriate.  I am fully aware that much of the Gay Rights is driven by a desire to receive the approval homosexuals could never get from their parents.  But the truth is that tolerance of homosexuality even in the libertine post-modern culture stops once you get inside the front door.  No father wants a homosexual son.  He may be quite happy to tolerate someone else’s kid following that path.  But not his own.  That isn’t going to change, and you won’t change it by force of law. 

...and Gay people being subjected to electric shock treatment my fundamentalist parents to straighten them out and yes feel these parents should be punished.

And you think this has something to do with me ... why?  You think I would approve of electric shock therapy?  You think there are vast numbers of parents looking to connect their children to electrodes?  Or you think that only ‘religious’ parents would do this?  Because we are cruel?  Stupid?  What?  Arguments like this simply demolish your credibility.

By opposing gay marriage you are saying we don’t want you to be in a committed, monogamous loving caring relationship, or are you saying they should only live in a way that makes you feel comfortable and for that reason?

A “committed, monogamous loving caring relationship” means something different in the homosexual community than it does in the heterosexual community, doesn’t it?  Show me the scads, volumes, reams of young homosexual men looking to settle down in comfortable suburban monogamy where monogamy is defined as one lifelong sexual partner.  They don’t exist.  You know it.  I know it. 

Homosexuality has no natural justification comparable to the compatability of the genders, and the necessity of heterosexuality for reproduction.  Homosexuality is justified only by the assertion of the homosexual that his desires are good.  To accept this logic is to establish sexual morality by nothing more than expressed desire.  This entire movement is designed to re-cast sexual norms according to pure consent.  It is intended to eliminate any structural boundaries of sexual morality.  Which is great for single men looking to get laid.  But it will annihilate marriage as we currently know it.  And marriage is the only institution in the history of man that has been found to successfully civilize children. 

The stakes are very high indeed.  Public constraint on sexual behavior is foundational to marriage.  Marriage is foundational to civilizing the next generation.  A civilized next generation is a necessary precondition for the culture to continue.  To establish sexual morality on the basis of consent is push over the first domino, and start the inevitable reaction.  But the legitimization of homosexuality can only be established if one assumes sexual behavior is limited only by consent.  This is the foundation of my (non-religious) case.

carl

[96] Posted by carl on 09-23-2009 at 07:09 PM • top

I need to qualify the last statement of my last post. I said “all homosexuals do” want to change the teaching of the church regarding homosexual behavior, but of course that’s not true, as we’re regularly reminded by some of our most valued commenters here, who are homosexuals who have chosen to try and live as the Bible teaches them to live. If we’re lucky they’ll chime in sooner or later.

[97] Posted by Greg Griffith on 09-23-2009 at 07:15 PM • top

Yes, can’t have those conservatives and their pesky facts and moral lessons. No, even children must be “engaged” in a “process.”

It’s how you make Soylent Lavender.

[98] Posted by Jeffersonian on 09-23-2009 at 07:20 PM • top

I want to address the issue of feminist wiccan practices that was commented on at the top of this post by several folks. Aside from a few families that have a hereditary connection with ESP and the occult (e.g., brujas), modern mythology aside, witch-craft as a formal religion was invented (some say re-invented) in the 20th century. I am not sure whether the man who popularized it, a certain Gardner (sic) created his neopagan romantic religion in the 1920’s, 30’s, 40’s or 50’s. I do know that it became popular among the psychedelic pansexual set in the 60’s, (including founders of a really frightening magazine called “RFD”) and that I encountered serious proponents of wicca in the 80’s who were completely convinced of its validity and relevance as a religion. They were quite “eclectic” in their views about religion, and tolerated a certain Jungianized Christianity. The people I knew were contemptuous of “New Age” thought as lacking sufficient depth. Unfortunately, their rigor did not extent to actually studying Christianity.

It seems appropriate that whoever cobbled together that “crone” liturgy made it up out of the whole cloth, as the whole wiccan movement seems to have developed similarly. Others have cited the need to get out the holy water, or protect it. I would second the need for prayerful protection. Spiritual evil most certainly exists, and “silly” rituals like this can open the door to it. In His mercy, God has protected me countless times in my encounters with this kind of silliness, but I have seen the horrific effects of these things in others who abandoned the protection I received. I would also suggest reciting a certan Psalm in the range of number 78 (I’m unsure of the exact number at the moment) which asks the Lord in very powerful language to protect us from the unrighteous. “As the wax melts before the flame, as the smoke is dispersed by the wind, so may all who hate the Lord flee from his sight, and the just rejoice.”

I trust those of you with better educations in these things to correct anything I have said here.

[99] Posted by ears2hear on 09-23-2009 at 08:02 PM • top

The problem is Carl sites like (..) and alike. What would you do about these people? Should I tolerate them? Would you if you were gay?
To nail my colours to the mast I am a gay male who has lived as a straight man, have two children and will probably stay that way but if my boys are gay and genetics would suggest their is a chance I will be telling them to be true to them selves and live a gay life.

My former parish is part of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.  They had a near run-in with the Phelps band, when the latter threatened to “protest” the funeral of a soldier who was killed in Iraq, a member of that congregation.  There was a call for prayer, and of course, a helpful call to the police to be on the lookout.  It seems that God intervened, depriving Mr. Phelps and his goons of the eh, fortitude, to show up as promised. 

So to answer your question, it would seem there are reasons other than simply being gay, to not tolerate Phelps. 

But in case that’s not enough, here we have an article from New Horizens, the OPC denominational magazine, regaring homosexuality.  A noteable excerpt:

Here, however, is the challenge that the church always faces. Do we truly receive as fellow saints those who come out of overtly sinful lifestyles? Isn’t it too uncomfortable to know that the person sitting next to you in worship was formerly a __________—a sinner like yourself! We want to treat people struggling with homosexuality differently, but Paul assumes that every believer is equally a saint through the work of Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 1:2). There is no place for fear or withdrawal because some sins have a special status in our eyes.

Those leaving a homosexually oriented life need the people of God to be willing to encourage, befriend, and patiently love them, because this sin encompasses so many powerful emotional, spiritual, and physical issues in their lives. No sin that has gripped our lives is ever easy to handle.

Too often the church has gained a reputation for only responding in fear and judgment toward homosexuality, rather than with love and grace.

It would seem that there are other reasons to oppose Phelps.  Who’d have thought?

[100] Posted by Moot on 09-23-2009 at 08:06 PM • top

cbr1100fan,
In the USA, laws reflect the communities around them.  There are constitutional protections that limit the laws that may be enforced.  (Congress may pass any law it wants to, but the Supreme Court can declare it unconstitutional and throw it out.)  So, can I work to get a law passed that states Christians do not have to pay sales tax or income tax, but all members of any other religion must do so (not that I would)?  Well, technically yes, I can work to pass such a law.  And if I get it passed the Supreme Court will blow it out of the water so fast it would make your head spin.
Can I work to pass a law (or consitutional amendment) outlawing abortions except in cases of rape and incest?  Yes.  And, assuming it was a constitutional amdement, there is precious little the Supreme Court could do about it.  We all elect and work to elect representatitives and senators and governors and presidents who we believe will best represent us.  We elect them to pass laws that we believe will be best for the country or state.  Now I don’t want a secular humanist to infringe on my rights to support or pass legislation any more than you want a religious person to infringe on your rights to do the same. 

All laws limit freedom to some degree.  That is the basis of good government.  We agree to surrender our freedoms to government in return for certain protections (police, fire, military, constitutional protections etc.).

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

[101] Posted by Philip Snyder on 09-23-2009 at 08:06 PM • top

Greg
May I say right from the start that I do appreciate that you and others have indulged my questions and provided me with some insights which may help with my goal of designing some sort of frame work which will allow a peaceful co-existence, well at least that is my goal. I am one of the very few secular voices I know of who thinks this is a better path rather than confrontation and dividing different elements of society. Excuse my reaction to Carl maybe I should not have responded or tried to challenge his views on this site, after all it is your forum and I am a guest.
To clarify I don’t believe that a Church should have to marry gay people. Marriage is religious institution, it should be a civil union recognized by the state, so we don’t disagree.
Well I am not an American so what you are first is not an issue for me. As a Secular humanist I see myself as a member of the human race first before being classified by our various tribal groups as the genome would underwrite.
No my reaction was only to Carl, not others here. I was trying to illustrate that the religious need our tolerance too! It is a two way street. I was also trying to illustrate that opinions have consequences. Many male youth suicides are as a result of the situation like my friend Matthew at 26, hanging himself because he thought he was unacceptable to god. His parents are Pentecostals and still blame the devil rather than themselves. Opinions have consequences. I would prefer Matthew were still here.
As I truthfully said previously, what religion has to say and or what various gods purport to say has no real effect on me one way or the other and is not madding at all. It has no authority with me any more than Buddhist or Koranic teachings as they are all the same to me. It’s the actions of the devotees that affect me and are sometimes maddening just like some secular activists madden you. My question to Carl is “should I tolerate them”when they are an afont to everything decient and rational.
I will be taking back to my meeting next week my assessment that I would be capable of coming to an accord with many here on some issues and agree to disagree on others. I still believe it is possible to co-exist but it will require tolerance on the part of both sides.
My reason for being transparent about my SSA is to illustrate I am living in a way most people here would find acceptable and the way you would prefer gay people to live. I don’t have gay sex, I am a father of 2 and I made my choice mainly due to social pressure not religious pressure. Not all gay people are leading openly gay lives, but my SSA does make me sympathetic to gay rights you are correct.

Thank you for indulging my questions and I will not post again on this topic so as not to cause controversy with people like Carl.

Again thank you!

[102] Posted by cbr1100fan on 09-23-2009 at 08:08 PM • top

Greg and Mike,
Thankyou for your reply, as I said I am interested in the Churches position from a conservative point of view. I was not really after a justification or Theological argument but more to find out what the actual position of the Church is and whether it is documented.
I am a Secular Humanist so biblical justification for a certain point of view hold no waters with me as I see it as having no authority.  I was more interested in the actual position the Church had and the expectations or behavioural restrictions it places on Gay people within its ranks in order for them to be acceptable members. I am not after an argument or a debate so to speak.
What I am exploring is whether there is any possibility that Secular and Religious communities can co-exist respectfully. The current situation in the Anglican Church would suggest is not an easy to do. To me I do not see why Gay people would want to be part of a religion that vilifies their real nature. To me if someone is a gay man and a Christian it is a contradiction in terms.
I have found what really seams to divide the Secular and Religious communities is not so much what we each think but HOW we each think. To this end I am very disillusioned as I can see no way for both sets of ideas to live side by side respectfully.

cbr1100fan:  You have the integrity to identify yourself as a Secular Humanist. One of the biggest problems w/ the Episcopal church today is that many of its bishops, clergy, lay leaders, are also Secular Humanists. They don’t have the nerve to come out and say so. 

I had a teacher in high school who had been an Epis priest. When he realized he didn’t believe what he was supposed to be preaching/teaching, he resigned and renounced his ordination vows. I had much more respect for him than I do for many Epis clergy I know today.

[103] Posted by maineiac on 09-23-2009 at 08:14 PM • top

cbr1100fan, thank you for stopping by and contributing an engaging discussion with Carl.

Many of us who have been here for some time have developed our own language that passes ideas between many threads and may sound strange and possibly uncaring to you.  I encourage you to stick around.  There are very fine people writing here, who would love to continue discussions and give you lots to think about.

Many of us are engineers, mathematicians, scientists, lawyers, etc., who know that secular humanist measures of knowledge are only helpful to a point in dealing with the big questions of life. After you deal with these questions for years, you eventually find how to use the tools and then let them go to their proper place.

Thanks again. Your discussion with Carl was most interesting.

[104] Posted by Dr. N. on 09-23-2009 at 08:32 PM • top

Dr. N, this is REALLY my last post, but I appreciate your post and wanted to say so. I could rip into someone like Carl but its better not to. Happy for him to have the last word and launch into a dogmatic tirade. I have a reasonable education to although not a Dr. I am just comfortable with the point of view that the universe does not even know I exist and has no agency or prime-mover. Having had an emergency last year where I was at risk of no longer existing I did not try to make a deal with my imaginary friend or call on a god to help me. To that extent I am at least a tested atheist. My mother is religious and I don’t try and take it from her as she thinks it’s how she will see dad again. But for me I see things differently. I can see a logical and rational explanation for all that we are and all that is without the need to think we are the reason behind it or its purpose. I am not solipsistic in that respect. It just a different way of thinking. I have been a Christian, Pentecostal and spiritualist at different stages but have had my current views now for 18 years. The problem with debating this stuff is there is no common denominator or level playing field on which to test the ideas. So to use a biblical quote, to a certain extent argument between myself and a someone with a god centered world view is pointless. I will keep reading but I am sure most here would prefer me to exit the forum. I am really not here to flame or get a reaction.

[105] Posted by cbr1100fan on 09-23-2009 at 09:08 PM • top

I could rip into someone like Carl but its better not to. Happy for him to have the last word and launch into a dogmatic tirade.

I was a bad commenter. :(

Ever so chastised carl

[106] Posted by carl on 09-23-2009 at 09:36 PM • top

cbr1100fan:

what place if any do gay people have in the Conservative wing of the Episcopal church.

Pretty much the same place as anyone else, provided that they are repentant sinners who have responded to the message of the Gospel.  But that’s the only “same place” the Church has to offer anyone.  That might not make sense to one who identifies himself as a secular humanist, but then why should it?  The problem does not begin with a Biblical view of human sexuality, but rather with the question: “What think ye of Christ?”  Until that question has been confronted and answered, and depending upon the answer given, the rest of it may not make any sense at all.

As a person who has never experienced anything other than same sex attraction, I can tell you that gay people in “the conservative wing of the Episcopal Church” are doing just fine, although I do not presume to speak for those outside of it.  If what could properly be called homophobia is rearing its ugly head, that must be happening somewhere else.  My fellow parishioners, regardless of their sexual orientation, don’t quite understand what all the fuss is about over that issue alone, and neither do I.

Would the church prefer gay men to live as straight men and repress their true nature?

Not at all, and far from it, although I refuse to embrace the notion that one’s sexual orientation is a defining characteristic that somehow represents our “true nature.”  I prefer a much broader view and I recognize just how dangerous sexual repression can be.  Struggling to keep our sexual desires below the surface while denying them to ourselves and others is a major obstacle to the healing that may need to take place where those desires are concerned.  The suppression of those desires, when they are inappropriate or immoral, is another matter and a part of the universal human condition.  I don’t believe that even secular humanists would be willing to argue that any and every desire we have must simply be acted upon in the name of overcoming repression.  I certainly hope not.

No, gay men cannot live as straight men.  What some of them are able to do is undergo the restoration of a healthy sexual orientation that may have been badly damaged but never entirely lost in the first place.  But heterosexuality is for heterosexuals, and I’m not one of them.  I was never able to “pray the gay away” and reading Playboy magazine or asking my female neighbor if we could give it a go on a trial basis wouldn’t change a thing.  My response to those who taunt us with the charge of being “anything but straight” is simply: “Yep, can’t fool you!”  And then I laugh.

But back to those conservative Episcopalians.  I was evangelized and discipled by some of them who knew precious little about homosexuality and who thought I was a real piece of work.  They did not begin by telling me about how bad my sex life was, although it was certainly bad enough.  They told me about a God who had created me and loved me and who had entered into this world Himself, with all the blood, and the vomit, and the smell of death and disinfectant in the AIDS ward, and the lonely desperation of those who inhabit the vast City of Night in which I had always lived, to save even me from sin and death and to provide me with a newness of life that I would never find elsewhere.

Eventually, I found myself down on all fours, howling like a wounded animal, and I accepted the gracious invitation of a loving Savior.  There was a struggle involved, but no one would ever convince me again that anything less than the Biblical standard for human sexuality could possibly be acceptable to God.  The thought of becoming a “eunuch for the kingdom of heaven’s sake” might not appeal to many people but it sounded quite right to me, and nothing has happened to change my mind.  We do not know what St. Paul’s “thorn in the flesh” was, only that God did not see fit to take it away in spite of his entreaties.  We all deal with thorns in the flesh, and one of mine remains same sex attraction.  But I have long since discovered the joys associated with the pursuit of chastity and the sense of liberation that it brings.  I haven’t had sexual relations with another man (or anyone or anything else) since 1990, and I wouldn’t have it any other way.  But apart from conversion to Christ, I know that it would all be incomprehensible.

Friend, if this problem has impacted your life in some way, you are not hearing from someone who does not understand the dilemma.  I am not peddling miracle cures and the Church can offer you only what she offers every miserable sinner, the hard way of the cross.  Not because God wishes to spoil our fun or leave us lonely and frustrated, but because the spiritual discipline of the Christian life is the only means through which we can go on to become the persons we were meant to be, and therein lies true happiness.  But there are no “hard cases” that are too hard for Him.  If you have ever been touched by the message of the gospel but you have fallen away from your first love, I invite you to come back.  There are still conservative parishes in the Episcopal Church where you will never find yourself to be the object of derision or ridicule, only access to the means of grace in a caring and supportive environment.  Our Savior Himself says, “Come and see.”  That can begin here and now, with only the simplest prayer on your part.

Secular humanism can never help you to understand the Christian view of human sexuality, or the Christian view of anything else.  But how will it help you to understand a world in which you are destined to nothing more than a solitary grave and an eternal oblivion?  If you suspect that there is, or ought to be, more than that, then you may find some of our answers worthy of consideration.  We don’t accept the idea that the lifeless corpse you will one day become is ultimately all thee is to the person you were meant to be, and we’d like to help you arrive at a different outcome.

God bless!

[107] Posted by episcopalienated on 09-23-2009 at 10:24 PM • top

episcopalienated ,

Thank you.

[108] Posted by Bo on 09-23-2009 at 11:18 PM • top

Wow, this is such an amazing thread I hardly know where to begin, but I will just jump in somewhere.

I became an Episcopalian in the late 70s in the midst of the excitement over women’s ordination and the new prayer book and I had no experience of TEC prior to that. As a radical feminist at the time I was confirmed, and someone who identified as a bisexual, the liberal Episcopalians I met, including quite a few openly gay ones, led me to see TEC as a refuge for feminists and gays. However, I soon grew impatient with language that wasn’t inclusive and with hopeless patriarchy and homophobia as I saw it. I left TEC and Christianity altogether in 1980 to become a full-fledged initiated practicing Wiccan who worshiped the goddess and nature and saw Yahweh as a minor Hebrew diety with a bad attitude. I was part of a small coven in which everyone was gay, lesbian, or bisexual. It sounds like if I’d just hung around for another 20 years, I’d have felt totally at home in TEC.

Fortunately, I was brought down to my knees in repentance years later and I remembered who my Savior was and I started the hard work of making him also my Lord. That did not come easily. I am very rebellious and I struggle with obedience. I am still working with this. Romans 1 speaks so strongly to me.

“Crone” was a word I once embraced. I wasn’t old enough to be one then, but the triple goddess as maiden, mother and crone is the Wiccan trinity, and I loved that way of looking at things. How I would have loved a female presiding bishop with her pantheistic views, or whatever. I am not up on all of the the particular heresies of your KJS. (I think of how some of us were discussing her comments in a Pentecostal blog a few months ago and someone referred to her as the “lady in the clown suit.”) But I would have loved her position and Robinson’s ordination and all of that at one time. Spong I never would have approved of. But now I cry out for this denomination and how lost it is, and I am so pleased that you folks here take your stand. It seems that some of you have left and some of you remain. I respect both positions.

To episcopalienated, I say: bless you for your stand. I was a bisexual who is really mostly heterosexual, so I did not have such a hard time of it as you. Even so, I never married, and so I live a celibate life, and that is not such a hard thing.

Even as my views have become increasingly conservative over the years, it was only very recently that I have come to oppose same sex marriage. While I see homosexuality as disordered sexuality, I do not believe that many people can change from homosexual to heterosexual, and I felt it was cruel to ask someone to not have a partner if they were in love and wanted a life-long commitment. Like cbr1100fan, I worried about young people committing suicide if they had a same sex orientation in a religious family. And yet, most of the gay friends of mine who died did so of AIDS. I felt that gay and lesbian people with no hope of being heterosexual should be allowed to marry, encouraged by Christians to do so. I no longer believe that, but I waver when confronted by gay and lesbian people. I feel like I am cruel. But then, I live without a partner. It is an acceptable life. And I am so pleased to hear the testimony of episcopalientated.

I will end this post with a question. Do most of you disagree with the ordination of women? I am currently struggling with this issue as I am a part of a liberal Mennonite church that is being slowly but surely corrupted by feminism, gay rights, envionmentalism, and Obama worship. We are between pastors, and I know we have a good chance of getting a female pastor. I have had 2 female pastors in the past, and I liked them, but I am no longer certain that I support this. I once was planning to go to seminary. I visted Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge in 1979, one of several seminaries I considered over the years. I am someone comfortable preaching and teaching in church. My church encourages many lay guest speakers, and did so even when we had a pastor, so I have preached there 4 times in 2 years. I feel called to teach and preach. But that is not the same as administering the sacraments (we don’t use the word “sacrament,” but I still see the Eucharist—another word we don’t use—and baptism as sacraments). I don’t mind if women do not do this. But if women are called to preach, I believe that it is OK for them to do so. But mostly only pastors preach, and I am not sure women should be pastors. I know that some of this is not relevant to an Anglican situation, but I am just curious about your views.

At one time feminism was my religion, whether I called myself a Christian or a Pagan and so now I distrust feminism. I was always at odds with feminism on the abortion issue. I was the pro-life radical feminist bisexual witch, which got everyone confused and irritated. I still see myself as a gender egalitarian in many ways. But I am also not opposed to God having a headship order. This is a phrase important to conservative Mennonites, and hated by women in my church. I consider covering my head, as conservative Mennonites do. That is in the Bible. But I am also called to leadership in the church. I chair the adult Sunday school committee. I preach. I lead worship. I do not feel I am going against God to do this. Conservative Mennonite women who cover their heads do not do any of those things.

I’ve rambled enough. This is such an interesting blog!

[109] Posted by KarenR on 09-24-2009 at 01:02 AM • top

KarenR,
We don’t have a consensus of opinion on WO here (or I don’t think we do), and it is sometimes a forbidden subject as the rhetoric can get so intense.

I don’t think women are called to headship positions in the Church, so I’m opposed to WO.  I think women are called to ministry in the church, in other roles (Deaconess, ministry with children, teaching (without spiritual authority), prayer, support, etc).

Some of the finest ministers and posters here hold the pro-wo position.  It isn’t something that breaks fellowship for me, though It would determine membership.

I couldn’t take the Lord’s supper at a woman’s hand, but I could take it with a woman who thought she could preside.

[110] Posted by Bo on 09-24-2009 at 01:54 AM • top

And then I opened the lectionary reading: 1 Cor. 6:12-20

12 ‘All things are lawful for me,’ but not all things are beneficial. ‘All things are lawful for me,’ but I will not be dominated by anything. 13’Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food,’ and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is meant not for fornication but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14And God raised the Lord and will also raise us by his power. 15Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Should I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! 16Do you not know that whoever is united to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For it is said, ‘The two shall be one flesh.’ 17But anyone united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. 18Shun fornication! Every sin that a person commits is outside the body; but the fornicator sins against the body itself. 19Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God, and that you are not your own? 20For you were bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body.

Peace to ALL & prayers for ALL,
-ms

[111] Posted by miserable sinner on 09-24-2009 at 07:26 AM • top

TEC against Disney? That’s just not right.

I hope Bruce doesn’t mistake his sense of belonging to an organization (evidenced by his obsession with minutiae) with salvation. “Lord, Lord! Did I not perform a wonderful defense of the doctrine of vestments?”

[112] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 09-24-2009 at 08:34 AM • top

episcopalienated and KarenR,

I am meeting with an old college friend this weekend who lives with her female partner.  We have corresponded frequently by IM and at one point, she asked me if the fact that she was gay “challenged my faith”.  I told her it wasn’t the first thing I considered when interacting with her but that I accepted the teaching of the church that sexual relations was restricted to marriage and marriage was between a man and a woman.

I would really appreciate any advice you might give me in navigating this friendship.  What was the mechansim by which you both came to “let go and let God” in this area of your life?  Your prayers would be gratefully appreciated on Saturday as well.

[113] Posted by Fidela on 09-24-2009 at 09:45 AM • top

Greg, (#65),

My only comment is that I’ve known of churches (mainly in the past, perhaps not so much anymore) where an open adulterer was allowed to be part of the vestry but an open homosexual was not.  And, other cases where adultery among the clergy was openly tolerated with minor slaps on the wrist, but homosexuality was forbidden.  I don’t disagree with the standard you have articulated, but the church has not always followed it.  In the past it seemed the church viewed homosexuality worse than many of the other sins.  It alienated many gay people from the church.  I say this as one who was repeatedly teased as a child by members and clergy of the church—called names like “sissy” and “fairy” and even had one clergy person try to drown me in a swimming pool because I was “too effeminate.”  All of this, of course, was prior to adolescence and before I’d ever had sex.  Although I later brought all of this to the attention of church leaders, to my knowledge, nothing has ever happened.  The pendulum in TEC has swung in the other direction but I remember a time when the sin was not about homosexuality, the anger and hostility instead was based upon whether a young boy conformed to proper gender roles and effeminate boys were treated with much hostility.  Most of the physical attacks I endured were years before I ever had sex.  It was about manhood.  And whether it was a sin for a boy to play with a doll.  Or throw the baseball too much like a girl, or things like that.  Sorry to ramble.

[114] Posted by Matthew on 09-24-2009 at 10:01 AM • top

episcopalienated, thank you for a witness that continues to inspire.

[115] Posted by oscewicee on 09-24-2009 at 10:01 AM • top

Matthew, someone tried to kill you as a child and nothing was done?

[116] Posted by oscewicee on 09-24-2009 at 10:02 AM • top

episcopalienated,

As always, thank you for your comments. You never fail to say what so many of us wish we could.

KarenR,

Thank you for that great post. This is going to sound weirdly progressive of me, but I always look forward to learning more about you “faith journey.”

On the matter of women’s ordination, Bo is right: In general it’s a topic that’s off the table around here because of our experiences in the past with certain commenters for whom WO is the source of all evil in the church, and who can’t let it go that some people disagree with them.

I don’t want this remarkable thread to get derailed on a discussion of WO (in fact, I won’t allow it), so suffice it to say that as you move from the charismatic/evangelical wing of the Anglican church to the Anglo-Catholic wing, you move from what is generally a pro-WO position to what is almost by definition an anti-WO position. The debate is complex and often emotional, and there is consensus at this site. As Bo points out, you’ll find both positions supported by some of the finest minds in the church. We should probably leave it at that, although a few minutes with Google will reveal a wealth of resources for and against it; you might spend some time with them and see what you think.

So once again (and I’m speaking to those who know who they are, not you KarenR), let’s leave my comment here as the last word on WO on this thread. The discussion about the place of gays in the conservative wing of the church is much more valuable.

[117] Posted by Greg Griffith on 09-24-2009 at 10:09 AM • top

KarenR:

Fortunately, I was brought down to my knees in repentance years later and I remembered who my Savior was and I started the hard work of making him also my Lord.

It is clear that you have been greatly blessed by God and your testimony is a source of inspiration and encouragement to us all. The line above from your comment stood out for me and you have truly touched upon the heart of the matter for every Christian.

Jesus Christ is never our Savior unless He is also our Lord. Perhaps it is confusion on this point that lies at the heart of the revisionist dilemma, a confusion that has an infernal origin.

True conversion does not take place until we find ourselves under a very deep conviction for our sins. Not the sins of others, or what they may have done to us, or how many problems we have, or how much we may have suffered, etc., etc., but a profound awareness of our own sinfulness, an awareness brought about by the Holy Spirit Himself.

We are reminded of this with every Act of Contrition we recite: O my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended You, and I detest all my sins because of Your just punishments, but most of all because they offend You, my God, who are all good and deserving of all my love.

We have offended against a holy and righteous God and we have no way to make amends for our offenses apart from the “full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice” offered up for us by our Lord Jesus Christ on the cross. There is no other remedy and our response must be one of unconditional surrender to His Lordship.

I felt that gay and lesbian people with no hope of being heterosexual should be allowed to marry, encouraged by Christians to do so. I no longer believe that, but I waver when confronted by gay and lesbian people. I feel like I am cruel.

No, you are not being cruel, and the Church is not being cruel when she insists that our sexual appetites must be governed by God’s own design and His intentions for the proper expression of our sexuality from the very beginning, and that is clearly limited to the union of one man and one woman for life.

When we respond to the message of the Gospel and embrace Christianity, our Lord Jesus Christ does not tell some of us that homo-genital acts are always gravely sinful, while he tells others that those same acts are quite permissible in the context of a monogamous relationship.

If we are receiving different messages, then they are not coming from the same source.  If the “Jesus” we believe in is not the Christ of faith that we find in the New Testament and the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church for twenty centuries, then we have placed our faith in the wrong one, perhaps in a “Jesus” of our own imagining.

It has been pointed out time and time again that when we step away from a Biblical standard for human sexuality, there is no logical place to stop.  Yet the supporters of “gay monogamy” remain blithely indifferent to the desires and interests of other sexual minorities who are just as adamant that their sexual configurations are healthy, loving, and non-exploitative too.

This is why the true proponents of sexual liberation, most of whom are honest enough to admit that their particular preferences simply cannot be reconciled with Christian faith and practice, recognize this pious posturing for the monumental fraud it really is and choose to stay away from our Church in droves.  And this category includes the overwhelming majority of sexually active gay men and lesbians themselves.

If cruelty is being inflicted by anyone, it is surely by this small but powerful fraction of a minority within our Church which, in an ongoing exercise of collective narcissism, would rather see her riven with controversy and destroyed from within than have to face the logical conclusion to which their position leads. 

My best wishes to you in your Christian pilgrimage and let us pray at all times for those who have been so greatly deceived by the Adversary of our souls.

[118] Posted by episcopalienated on 09-24-2009 at 10:14 AM • top

KarenR,

Thank you for your wonderful testimony, and your courage to share it with us and the world.  Without going into “that subject,” I do encourage you to keep seminary as an option.

[119] Posted by Moot on 09-24-2009 at 10:33 AM • top

EEGADS ! YIKES ! For those who want something a bit more orthodox, Try the 16 pg. newspaper of the Diocese of SC.  Just go to http://dioceseofsc.org/ The current issue (Seot/Oct)  of the newspaper, Jubilate Deo, is online as a PDF via a link from the diocesan website.

For those who have posted AND articulated the orthodox Christian position on homosexuality so incredibly well. Well done !!

[120] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 09-24-2009 at 10:52 AM • top

Below is a suggested alternate liturgy that those poor utterly confused women need but will never get from the spiritual directors.

“Dear Lord Jesus, preserve us from caring so much about what other people think of us that we feel the need for special Wiccan liturgies to boost our womanly self-esteem. In Your Name we pray, AMEN.”

If only these women had real guiders who could just snap them out of this ridiculousness by pointing out the obvious as in the above.

[121] Posted by StayinAnglican on 09-24-2009 at 11:38 AM • top

Oscewicee,  Yes though I did not tell my parents about it for many years.  Therefore, when I did and mentioned it to folks in the church, they either did not believe it or were at a loss as to what to do.  Also, there was no proof, it was a one-on-one encounter.  And, maybe (hopefully), he really was not trying to kill me just hold me under water long enough to scare dickens out of me.  But, I recall having the subjective feeling that I could not hold on much longer—I was completely terrified—and hearing him say that he did not want sissies playing with his kids.  I was about 9 or 10 at the time.  I really wanted to be friends with one of his kids that I met at school because they had a pool and we didn’t.  We played in the pool for probably an hour when he sent his son inside and this happened with no one watching.  That was my last time on their property.

[122] Posted by Matthew on 09-24-2009 at 11:40 AM • top

But, I recall having the subjective feeling that I could not hold on much longer—I was completely terrified—and hearing him say that he did not want sissies playing with his kids.

That was cruel and terrible, Matthew. How old were you?

I don’t disagree with the standard you have articulated, but the church has not always followed it.

And that is where the church has fallen. Looking the other way about divorce and adultery has had the effect of making too many young people see marriage as a big party you get to dress up for instead of a lifelong commitment to another person.

[123] Posted by oscewicee on 09-24-2009 at 11:58 AM • top

RE: “And, maybe (hopefully), he really was not trying to kill me just hold me under water long enough to scare dickens out of me.”

HORRIBLE.

He should have been arrested for assault and battery. 

One of the things that bothers me about the addition of Yet More Laws is that we do not enforce and throw the book at violaters of the original laws that we already have on the books.  The man needed to be thrown into the slammer. 

Any self-respecting parent would allow NO SUCH THING done to their child.  The first duty of a parent it to protect the physical welfare of their children making certain that they do the best they can to get the child to adulthood.  Even the animals know to do that.

[124] Posted by Sarah on 09-24-2009 at 12:49 PM • top

Matthew:  Adding to Sarah’s list in #124, I’d throw in attempted murder and possibly kidnapping (you were seemingly restrained against your will).  In recent vintage hate crime statutes could also be brought to bear.

May what remains of that scared little boy within you find peace in the love of God Almighty.

Peace,
-ms

[125] Posted by miserable sinner on 09-24-2009 at 01:12 PM • top

Lord have mercy.  Christ have mercy.  Lord have mercy.

[126] Posted by Johng on 09-24-2009 at 01:33 PM • top

Sarah,  Agreed.  One of the issues I wish the church would tackle is gender non-conforming behavior among youth.  How to respond to it, how to counsel such young children.  And, what the response should be to adults who have a visceral reaction to gender non-conforming behavior that might lead to bullying or other sinful behavior.  Certainly the biblical passages that were cited in my youth all dealt with homosexuality or sexual sins.  But this is a non-sequitor.  The behavior I was engaging in (admitedly effeminate) had nothing to do with sexual practices.  Ironically, it may have had the effect of me thinking once I hit puberty that it was pre-ordained or that was the only direction to go.  I wish we would have a conversation about gendered behavior rather than homosexuality.

[127] Posted by Matthew on 09-24-2009 at 01:36 PM • top

Matthew, I don’t think it’s necessarily to do with gender. We had a football coach living in my neighborhood when I was a child. He had no use for boys who weren’t interested in sports - not being interested in sports is not a “gendered behavior.” The boys in my neighborhood who weren’t interested were all thoroughly heterosexual males - they just enjoyed other things (like blowing up firecrackers, prowling in the woods, etc.) What the real problem is, I think, is something much more basic - an unwillingness for people to tolerate or attempt to understand people who don’t share their interests, personality, etc.

[128] Posted by oscewicee on 09-24-2009 at 02:00 PM • top

I had some issues about ‘gender identity’ when I was in school to, though back then it wasn’t called that. smile

I cried openly when saddened, I cooked, I could sew, knit, and crochet, I dressed well.  I did well in my studies.

I was also farm raised, and strong, so I had less of the short end of the stick, (The fellows don’t call you sissy after you’ve beaten them up).

We do need to look for scriptural rather than cultural rules for gender behaviour.  Too many folks think ‘John Wayne’ and not ‘James the Just’ are the proper role models.

[129] Posted by Bo on 09-24-2009 at 02:07 PM • top

The problem I have with the mainstream model of masculinity is that I would rather be Atticus Finch than anyone else. He was not a sports fanatic, he took no joy in violence, he had manners, and he was civilized. He’s also the ideal of being a father in the movies.

The modern images of men as clown-fathers, sports nuts or beer swillers interest me not at all.

[130] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 09-24-2009 at 02:20 PM • top

I would rather be married to Atticus Finch than anyone else, too.

[131] Posted by oscewicee on 09-24-2009 at 02:29 PM • top

Er. I hope that didn’t sound like I thought Matthew A. would like to be married to him!

[132] Posted by oscewicee on 09-24-2009 at 02:41 PM • top

[54] Sarha7nj,

If you think Mythbusters demonstrated

…that it’s almost impossible to shoot fish in a barrel…

you are obviously ignorant of the concept of “using enough gun.”

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

[133] Posted by H. Potter (aka Martial Artist) on 09-24-2009 at 03:20 PM • top

[84] carl,

You wrote

Religious persecution is coming in this country, and I don’t mean denial of tax benefits.  I will see it before I die, and I turn 50 in one month.

Perhaps I will be a bit luckier, lucky enough not to see it in this life. I will turn 64 in 15 days. Not that I am wishing for an early departure, but none of us knows the day or time when we will go.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

[134] Posted by H. Potter (aka Martial Artist) on 09-24-2009 at 03:37 PM • top

[83] cbr1100fan,

You stated to carl:

…the error in your point of view is that you wish to impose your point of view on others and what they can do and or the rights they have where allowing gay marriage doesn’t mean you have to marry a man. The outcomes are not of equal effect or consequence. You are limiting the other persons civil rights he is not imposing his on you.

I believe, from both anthropological and historical points of view the error is yours, at least insofar as the example you have chosen.

Marriage, defined as the establishment of a life-long union between a man and a woman, exists in virtually every known culture (whether extant or extinct) on the planet and is unambiguously a prepolitical institution. By contrast, the entire concept of civil rights is most definitely a political, as well as a modern* legal, construct.

The issues that most likely have some legitimate tie to this modern concept of civil rights, and by which the GLBT activists attempt to justify the oxymoron of same-gender marriage, are generally the result the (often inappropriate) conflation of legal policies with marital status (e.g., income tax exemptions, adoption laws, hospital visitation rights, etc.). Decouple those issues by making them available to all persons as contractual rights and the argument for same-gender marriage, essentially disappear.

What this clearly indicates is that those who support same-gender marriage are simply making a category error, and that error is largely due to the inapt conflations to which I referred.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer (and Ducati enthusiast)
___________________

*—I use the word modern here to indicate the period of time from which we have written historical records about the lives of ordinary people, not to indicate the most recent two millenia or any even shorter period.

[135] Posted by H. Potter (aka Martial Artist) on 09-24-2009 at 03:56 PM • top

[134] H. Potter

none of us knows the day or time when we will go.

Yes, I was thinking of that point when I wrote that sentence.  In my mind I included a “Lord willing.”  Honestly, I didn’t include it because I didn’t want to insert a distracting qualifier in the sentence.  What I wrote was a more dramatic way of saying “within thirty years.”  And I like dramatic phrases.  smile

carl

[136] Posted by carl on 09-24-2009 at 03:58 PM • top

Oscewicee (#128), I agree based on the examples you cite.  But there are other cases of young boys who take an interest in wearing dresses, wearing lipstick and painting their finger nails, among other things.  The parents are rather freaked out.  They don’t know what to do.  The church often does not know what to tell them to do either.  Some young boys have mannerisms like a high pitch tone of voice or other things that come accross as effeminate.  I agree that its not necessarily about homosexuality. Some will grow up to be heterosexual.  But the parents often feel shame and don’t know what to do.  The church is often not much help.  Combine that with the names the young boy is called and very little to counter it, and sometimes it becomes self fulfilling prophecy.  That is what I wish the church would talk about.

[137] Posted by Matthew on 09-24-2009 at 04:19 PM • top

#132 I doubt it. But, if SFIF were a Christian dating site AND if you two were single AND that oldie but goodie rule that one’s a boy one’s a girl . . .

Actually, from my old school point of view, I thought your response was wonderful.

Smiling,
-ms

[138] Posted by miserable sinner on 09-24-2009 at 04:39 PM • top

““You wrote

Religious persecution is coming in this country, and I don’t mean denial of tax benefits.  I will see it before I die, and I turn 50 in one month.”

Perhaps I will be a bit luckier, lucky enough not to see it in this life. I will turn 64 in 15 days. Not that I am wishing for an early departure, but none of us knows the day or time when we will go.

Keith,  As you do, I believe carl’s words regarding Christian persecution (and I deliberately said Christian since it appears that Christians are very specifically being targeted by legal bodies - while anti-semiticism is illegally rife-).  I turn 62 in November and suppose that I will also be with the Lord before the US will be severely impacted by full-blown persecution, but my wife and I pray for our 18 year old daughter.

On the other hand It’s a very strange thing to me to see secular societies are preparing to be dominated by religion by actually promoting the security and influence -and therefore growth- of Islam in their ‘irreligious’ societies

[139] Posted by Bill C on 09-24-2009 at 05:59 PM • top

Matthew, 137
Hoping to be seen as willing to discuss what the church might should be saying….

The OT is preserved for us a teacher, for our benefit.  While it is not ‘binding’ it is ‘helpful’. The ‘cross dressing’ thing is a no-no. Lipstick and painted nails are a no-no in our house (for either sons or daughters). High pitched voice can’t be helped (at least not until the testosterone kicks in).

I’d be freaked if my son wanted to wear a dress or wear lipstick, less so if he wanted to paint his nails. 

I did work with one of them on getting his pitch lower when he laughed.

This thread has started a discussion between my wife and I on what the ‘biblical gender roles and limits’ are.  So far the ‘don’t wear the other sex’s clothing’ and that the man is to ‘provide for his family’ are the only easily stated ones we’ve agreed are actually there in text. 

We’ve decided, I think, that the ‘cross-dressing’ rule is ‘fixed’ but the definition of ‘mens and womens clothing’ is not.  And that today, there are so many ladies in britches that it no longer violates the rules for women to were them, but that the rule against men is dresses is still in place (unless we have a massive change in culture norms for men’s attire).

[140] Posted by Bo on 09-24-2009 at 09:39 PM • top

TGC is so funny.  What religion are they?
Polycarp

[141] Posted by polycarp000 on 09-24-2009 at 10:02 PM • top

The boy that is small, and slow, and incompetent at sports, and bookish will be set upon by his peers.  Why?  Because he does not conform to the social values of his peer group.  His rejection becomes their self-validation.  And the marginal boy will be the most ruthless, for he feels himself most at risk of exclusion.  It is the Law of the wolf pack, and the ordering of the wolf pack is driven by strength.  The value of membership is determined by who is excluded; who is beaten and savaged and ridiculed.  This is simply the way boys are.  It is the sin nature yet untrained by parents and life.  One might as well try to change the spots on a leopard.

Those who find themselves cast out in this manner make their way through childhood as best they can in loneliness and isolation and fear.  They understand early that no one will take their side.  They learn to hate and despise their peers as much as they hate and despise themselves, and they hold within themselves dark fantasies of vengeance visited upon their abusers.  But it is all foolishness that never leaves the synapses that conceive it, for they have not the strength to follow through.  And they despise themselves even more for knowing it.  They hate the years they spend in childhood.  They have no fond memories of grammar school, or middle school, or high school, and they do not go to re-unions.  Life begins for them in young adulthood when the soothing cloak of anonymity finally returns.  The past is dead to them, and the people in it.  But the memories never go away.  Ever.

The one who knows God will shake his fist at heaven through all this and ask “Why?’  But then one day he comprehends the answer, and he is stunned.  Because there is always an answer.  And it reveals that God is good.  Even when He stands in the shadows, and cannot apparently be seen.  What He decides is still good.  No matter what.

carl

[142] Posted by carl on 09-24-2009 at 10:51 PM • top

Carl,
WOW.
That really you?
Deep and on point.
Thanks!

[143] Posted by Bo on 09-24-2009 at 11:00 PM • top

Thanks for that Carl.
Some of that is my story too, and now I must do business with God.

[144] Posted by Derek Smith on 09-25-2009 at 01:04 AM • top

Thanks for sharing your story, Carl. It is indeed a painful thing to remember the loneliness of childhood.  However not all small, not- good-at-sports boys have childhoods dominated by loneliness and fear.

My husband was a small almost preemie baby.  He was never very good at sports and was teased by the other kids. That past does indeed bring back painful memories for him but I don’t think his childhood was dominated by loneliness and fear. He was even teased about being a “fairy”  in middle school. Fortunately, his parents encouraged an interest in music,  books and took both of their boys to church regularly.  He did have friends through middle school, high school just not many. He was involved in other activities like Band and DeMolay just not sports. He grew up to be a heterosexual male with a nice bass voice good enough to sing in regional choir and is a professional librarian.  Not to mention a deep and abiding Christian faith.

He would agree with you that God is indeed Good. We all have much to be thankful for including God’s love for us even the small and the *not good at sports* boys.

[145] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 09-25-2009 at 05:27 AM • top

We’ve decided, I think, that the ‘cross-dressing’ rule is ‘fixed’ but the definition of ‘mens and womens clothing’ is not.

Not to long ago, guys simply didn’t wear earings or dye their hair.  That’s now become mainstream.  Once upon a time, really young boys wore dresses and petticoats until they were breached.  Now, hardly any girls wear dresses unless their parents make them dress up for church or they are going to something like prom. 

I suppose someone really wanting to try out a “dress” could just wear a kilt, or a cassock. grin

BTW, speaking as someone that was (and mostly still is) bookish, unathletic, dorkish in my interests, and spoke with a lisp until I finally got speech therepy, I can relate to a lot of what carl wrote.

[146] Posted by AndrewA on 09-25-2009 at 05:56 AM • top

High pitched voice can’t be helped (at least not until the testosterone kicks in).

Speaking as a big fan of the boy treble, I greatly appreciate high pitched boy singing voices, and get severly annoyed with they get made fun of. 

and that the man is to ‘provide for his family’ are the only easily stated ones we’ve agreed are actually there in text.

Man are certainly to provide for their family, but the caveat I would add to that is that providing for the family does not require that they be the sole or primary bread winner.  For example, if the wife is a brilliant and well paid surgeon, and the man is a much less well paid librarian, public school teacher, pastor, soldier, or whatever, there is no shame in the fact that his wife provides more financially for the family than he does.  In fact, I don’t even see anything wrong if the wife has a well paid job and the husband is the one that stays home and does housework, cooks, takes care of the kids, etc. 

Though personally,if I were the wife, I would insist that the husband get at least a part time job, just as if I get married, I would be very bothered if my wife didn’t have at least some sort of income.

[147] Posted by AndrewA on 09-25-2009 at 06:17 AM • top

Historical Recreations allow for flowing robes as well…
That’s what drove us to the ‘cultural’ determination of mens and womens clothing.  The Patriarchs wore long flowing robes, while their wives may well have worn harem pants….

The Proverbs 31 wife did a good bit of positive things for the household budget.

I’m rather content with my wife staying being a keeper at home, not only because its scriptural, but also practical - we couldn’t afford for her to go to outside work (she saves more in tutoring costs alone than she would earn).

My son who joined the Marines did the hair dye thing, in blue, and he also tried blonde.  He wrote a nice article for the local paper about how people’s view of him changed when he went from ‘natural’ to ‘blue’.

A man can retain a high voice (falsetto and the natural tenor) after testosterone does its work, but a boy can’t have a deep one until after it has done so….And some women are natural altos.  My wife’s voice is lower than my youngest sons (He is 7, it’ll change).


The main thing is, we do have to look deep to see what part of the ‘roles’ are created order, and what part are a cultural veneer added later by fallen man.

[148] Posted by Bo on 09-25-2009 at 09:09 AM • top

The Proverbs 31 wife did a good bit of positive things for the household budget.

I’m ashamed to say I never read that passage before.  Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

I’m rather content with my wife staying being a keeper at home, not only because its scriptural, but also practical - we couldn’t afford for her to go to outside work (she saves more in tutoring costs alone than she would earn).

Nothing wrong with that, as long as the wife is contributing to the household economy.  However, I’m curious as to whether or not you would be bothered if it were your wife working outside the house and you were filling the economic functions filled by your wife.

My personal opinion is that my hypothetical wife should have three options:
1)  Get a cash paying job.
2)  Contribute a substantial dowry.
3)  Really enjoy things like milking cows, churning butter, spinning wool, making clothes, cleaning house without eletric appliances, etc.

[149] Posted by AndrewA on 09-25-2009 at 09:27 AM • top

Carl.  Wow.  Exactly my experience growing up. 

People get bullied and excluded for lots of reasons.  I just wish the church would speak out more about it.  It may be one of the few areas where the orthodox and revisionists could find some common ground.

[150] Posted by Matthew on 09-25-2009 at 09:53 AM • top

Bo, 140.  I get what you are saying but I guess the point of my post was gaydar in general.  And, how the orthodox should respond to it and deal with it.  I use “gaydar” because that is perhaps the easieast shorthand word for it.  There are a number of ex-gay folks on television, people from Exodus and other ministries that help people live free of homosexuality.  Some of them generate lots of media attention.  I was wasthing an interview with Alan Chambers (ex gay) once during the Christmas holidays and a fairly orthodox member of my family walked in.  He listened to about 30 seconds of the interview and remarked, “that guy is gay as a goose.  A total queer.”  But he was not in the room long enough to grasp that this man is celibate.  And is very active in ex-gay ministries.  But he still comes across as a flaming queen.  Therefore, it may be that he does not act on homosexual desires, but some things you cannot change.  My concern is how the orthodox treat such parishioners, and also youth in our parishes who may come across in the same way.  If they feel rejected, is it any wonder they might join a revisionist church where they are accepted but also encouraged to sin sexually.  The right balance, it seems to me, is to not encourage sin or bless it, but not make such deragotory comments withouth knowing all the facts.  Especially when one is dealing with a child or adolescent who is probably not sexually active.  I have been in more than a few orthodox parishes where “gutter talk” has been tolerated, even towards those not practicing homosexuality.  Its simply an issue we need to work on and confront when we see/hear it.  That’s all.

[151] Posted by Matthew on 09-25-2009 at 10:04 AM • top

Matthew, if it makes you feel better, my favorite toy when I was about 5, was a doll.  No, it did not have kung-fu grip, and it wasn’t even an action figure.  It was a flat-out girl’s doll.  Something more ‘modern’ would have been one of the Cabbage Patch Kids.  Mom got it for me to teach me about people who have more melanin than myself and the people in my immediate surroundings at the time. 

My other favorite plaything (a bit OT, but I’ll return quickly) was an invisible dog, a maltese, who I named, “Whiskey.” 

Carl -

The problem you’re describing happens less often in schools that are not co-ed, and even less than that in homeschool environments.

[152] Posted by Moot on 09-25-2009 at 10:30 AM • top

Matthew,
What I was trying to get at is that we have to be very careful in our rejection of non conforming ‘gender displays’ - there really aren’t many in the Scripture that we can point to and say ‘Thus sayeth the Lord’.  And without those we have opinion, conjecture, and sometimes reason, but those only to work from. 

Andrew,
We actually discussed that, I’m not making much money now (working two part-time minimum wage jobs), and she could possibly get full-time secretarial work (she was an executive VP’s secretary when we meet) paying more and with benefits.  It came down to her desire for me to be the primary bread-winner.  She was afraid that she would not be able to respect me as head of the house if I were her financial dependent.  I’d be happy to teach and cook and clean (I do the latter two better than my wife, I think she is the better teacher, but I could manage). 

If you want her to churn and spin you’d better be a good herdsman!

[153] Posted by Bo on 09-25-2009 at 11:45 AM • top

“My personal opinion is that my hypothetical wife should have three options:
1)  Get a cash paying job.
2)  Contribute a substantial dowry.
3)  Really enjoy things like milking cows, churning butter, spinning wool, making clothes, cleaning house without eletric appliances, etc.”

Wow! women must be standing in line to hook up with you!
great list to take to a speed dating event,

[154] Posted by sandraoh on 09-25-2009 at 12:39 PM • top

LOL, sandraoh. I kind of liked the part about spinning wool, but the rest, not so much.

[155] Posted by oscewicee on 09-25-2009 at 12:50 PM • top

No offense AndrewA, #147, but I think most women do the lion’s share of work in the home,including the minutia that adds up to a comfortable and healthy christian household, I worked outside the home once my children reached school age, but thankfully my husband did not expect me too,

[156] Posted by sandraoh on 09-25-2009 at 01:06 PM • top

If you want her to churn and spin you’d better be a good herdsman!

Point to Bo. 

Of course, the equivelent of my job (archivist) would have been done by a celibate monk in medieval times, and a slave in Roman times.

Wow! women must be standing in line to hook up with you! great list to take to a speed dating event,

LOL.  The word “wife” comes from the same Anglo-Saxon word for “weaver”.

I’m kinda figuring I’m never going to get married (for other reasons) though where I live most woman would be quite upset at the idea that the husband thinks she shouldn’t have a job of her own.

I haven’t asked, but I strongly suspect that my brother’s wife make more money than he does, between her National Guard drill pay and her full time job.  She does enjoy sewing though. 

I do have a cousin that is very fortunate that his wife has a well paying white-collar consulting job that allows her to work from home most of the time.  I’m not going to ask which of them makes more. 

My other favorite plaything (a bit OT, but I’ll return quickly) was an invisible dog, a maltese, who I named, “Whiskey.” 

 

Whiskeypalians…  Clearly someone that didn’t grow up Baptist! 

Most of my best friends as a kid were stuffed animals.

[157] Posted by AndrewA on 09-25-2009 at 01:14 PM • top

I took my teddy bear “Alphonso Theodosius Bear’ with me when I deployed.  Better than a pillow.

sandraoh,
If she shares in the ‘outside work’ he should share in the ‘inside work’ from simple fairness, not to mention the ‘love her’ aspects.  And yes, I know it rarely happens.

[158] Posted by Bo on 09-25-2009 at 02:30 PM • top

#139 - I sgree with you wholeheartedly. My wife feels the same. We both sense that full-blown persecution of Christians (and probably religious Jews) will not happen in our lifetimes [I’m 53, she’s 48], but our children & grandchildren will see it.
I feel like Hezekiah and Josiah, who were told that national calamity would take place in the near future, but that they would be “gathered to the grave in peace” [2 Chron. 34:28].
In any case, I can certainly see the seeds of such persecution being planted and germinated.

[159] Posted by GSP98 on 09-25-2009 at 04:28 PM • top

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.


Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere about the crisis in our church. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.