Rhetoric, Empathy, and the Holiness of the Church

Right interpretation and transmission of the gospel is necessary, with empathy as required. That’s one of the things the church is for.

Thanks for this clear message Matt+

It is quite possible for a person to be wrong about the issues in same-sex relationships and still be orthodox on the Trinity, the humanity and divinity of Christ, the meaning of the cross and Christ’s sacrifice, and a host of other important doctrines.

However, many “progressives” are hard at work to deny the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, the reality of the Trinity, and the effectiveness of Christ’s death as an atoning sacrifice for sin.  I have seen a paper denying that Paul has much worthwhile to say to followers of Jesus Christ.

We are in a bind, for there are those who uphold almost all the central tenets of orthodox Christianity, there are those who sincerely seek to follow Jesus but who have been instructed in poor doctrine, and there are those who know what orthodox faith is and who deny it.  Our opponents are not all in one place (and I suspect that some who are orthodox on the question of sexual behavior are not at all orthodox on other matters).

Being polite, empathetic, caring, and so on are necessary.  We must not dehumanize those with whom we disagree.  But we must also hold firm to the historic teachings.  We must proclaim them with both love and strength.  The questions of sexuality are inherently tied into questions of the reliability and authority of God’s Word, the doctrine of what it means to be human, the nature and effects of sin, the need for repentance, the doctrine of atonement, the doctrine of sanctification, and so many more Christian convictions.  It is not an area where we can agree to disagree, because it has implications for so many other areas of Christian thought.

Anglican Xn:

“It is quite possible for a person to be wrong about the issues in same-sex relationships and still be orthodox on the Trinity, the humanity and divinity of Christ, the meaning of the cross and Christ’s sacrifice, and a host of other important doctrines.”

True, and yet the question is: what is the relative importance of being wrong about same-sex relationships if you are a preacher and/or a teacher? I think they rise to the level of essentials both with regard to the implicit denial of scriptural authority it entails and the explicit rejection of the creation ordinance of marriage and the desecration of the body.

There is a definitive distinction between teachers and non-teachers in this matter. It is one thing to have doubts with regard to orthodox doctrine. It is another thing to have a position of authority in the church as a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ and undermine that doctrine from the pulpit. The latter rather than the former is what I am concerned with.

Dear Matt:

It is interesting that you wrote this b/c in my wanderings today I have been pondering what I found so jarring about the homosexual judge/Anglican clergy interchange I read about earlier this morning.  link

On the one hand, the priest is right in saying that homosexuality is a sin and the judge should repent of it.  However, I decided what I didn’t like about it was the following:  1. If he was really concerned about this man, then he needed to follow the Biblical guidelines about ‘leaving your gift at the altar’ etc. when going about addressing it, 2.  That if we are going to go about publicly addressing one another’s sin - seems to me only right that we start with our own and work outward.

What this has to do with your written piece here is I think sometimes we are so busy trying to quash heresy that we forget the worse heresies are within our own selves. 

Should we stand for what is correct?  That sins - no matter which ones - shouldn’t be condoned and encouraged by our church?  Of course we should. 

Should we do this remembering and being willing to openly admit and WORK on our own?  Yes, we should.

As an Orthodox Anglican I think what troubles me the most is that while we state emphatically that “If anyone should follow Jesus, he must deny himself take up and follow Him.” and then look around us and point to those who are all about “Not Denying themselves” and forget (especially as American Christians) this also means - NOT being materialistic, NOT eating too much, NOT ditching your spouse when they ‘don’t fulfill my every need anymore’,  NOT gossiping or being Self-Centered.

Perhaps… perhaps if we become more about denying OURSELVES then we can better a better witness to those who are indulging themselves in other sins we just might not be committing at the moment.

Until we get serious about that, Matt, I just don’t think anyone is going to really hear a word we say.

Sigh.. “take up HIS CROSS and follow Him” 

Note to self “use preview - use preview”

I agree with your take, Matt.  There are some other issues as well that I notice. 

For instance, Father Martins says: “Empathy makes the truth easier to see.”

I do not agree.  I do not think that my empathising with a progressive Episcopal activist will make him at all see or agree with what I believe, nor of course will his emphathising with me make me likely to see or agree with what he believes.  As far as making the truth easier to see, empathy is a null and void tool from my perspective. 

Further, I think that there is a time and a place for expressing empathy.  In business, during a meeting on the latest profit and loss sheet, it is generally inappropriate to express empathy.  In the midst of a rational debate on national television it is generally inappropriate—not to mention irrelevant—to express empathy, since the event is promoted as an objective debate.

Within friendships, of course, it is rare for the expression of empathy to be inappropriate ever.  But with different roles, in different venues, it is often inappropriate.

Further, I have no particular desire for liberals to see me in a nice way—I mean, it’s nice as a side-benefit, but I think it unlikely to happen and I don’t make an effort or lose sleep over their perfectly understandable ire.  It’s very normal for the arguments and feelings to be heated between the two sides—we’re in the same organization, and battling for polarically opposing foundational worldviews.  One would have to be inhuman to speak in a bloodless fashion when the stakes are so high.  I have no problem with the passions expressed on the other side and indeed, rarely ever see it since I stay almost entirely on the more conservative blogs.

Further, I don’t see a purpose in establishing “gentle discourse and fellowship”—I’m not trying to convince progressive Episcopal activists of anything in particular, nor am I communicating with them in mind in the blogosphere, nor do I wish to fellowship with them as Christians, though like Matt, I take great pleasure in my friends who are non-Christian or a part of alternate religions.  I’m sure that were some of us not in the same church, and were I to run into some of them out on the trails or in antique stores we would have lovely discourse, only not about Christianity or politics.

Finally—I empathise with many, including a startling array of progressives.  But again, I consider what empathy that I have to be 1) irrelevant to the foundational issues over which we are battling, 2) of no interest to anyone but me and my friends and allies, 3) condescending to share with those who equally aren’t interested, and 4) somewhat exhibitionist to publicly share on the blogosphere.

If there were progressive Episcopal activists out there who empthasized with me [somewhat difficult to do since they know practically nothing about me], that’s fine—but I’m not particularly interested in hearing about it since their emotions about me are not relevant to what I am working for or seeking.

thanks Eclipse, I do not agree with you, I think, about the australian priest. I think he was absolutely correct in what he said and how he said it. I think this is precisely the model that is given in the NT. On that note, I am a bit confused about your reference to “leaving your gift at the altar”. That text has primarily to do with sins between and among believers. It does not say much about false teaching. It is the duty of ministers to confront sin and false teaching in themselves and in others.

That leads me to the final point of my disagreement with you. You seem to adopt one of the more common false dichotomies; that believers should not care so much about heresy as they do their own sinfulness. I have no idea why these two things are seen as opposed to one another.

If a walled city is besieged by the enemy and, at the same time, within the city there is a spate of murders, the leaders of the city are responsible for dealing both with the seige externally and with the murders internally. It would be rather absurd to suggest that the city ought not defend itself unless it first resolve the murder problem.

But that is precisely what many suggest. Until we acheive moral perfection we dare not defend the church against heretics.

First of all holiness in the church is impossible so long as heresy is being preached and believed. Second, it is quite easy to be fully cognizant of our own wretched sinfulness and repent while at the same time protect the church from the lies of the pit.

I spent about a year ‘empathizing’ on FrJake’s blog and for much the same reason Patton read Rommel’s book.  I read most every comment on every thread during that time, and I learned a great deal.  Mostly I learned that I was very naive about the nature and content of Liberal Christianity.  At the end of that period I was convinced beyond doubt that I had significantly underestimated both its perniciousness and lethality.

There is the unstated assumption in this article that ‘empathy’ will bring convergence. The author assumes we will see more similarities if only we try, and these similarities will lead to reconciliation.  But I found only differences.  And the more I sought to understand liberal Christianity, the more stark and disturbing those differences became.  It is a dynamic that Fr. Martins needs to address for his thesis to be credible.

carl

btw, am I the only one who found the declared equivalence of SF and FJSTW to be 1) annoying, and 2) wrong?

If the orthodox position is correct, then however sincere our revisionist clergy friends may be, by their doctrine they actively lead homosexual people away from Christ and into eternal darkness, teaching them to ignore or rationalize away the clear warnings and judgments of scripture and trust rather in the blind guidance of a “church” loosed from her apostolic moorings.

Interesting, your use of “If” here, Fr. Matthew. Can it be possible that you are slipping into an hermeneutic of “I could be wrong”?

For me, it all comes down to the interpretation of and the place of Scripture. IMHO the overarching message, the clear trajectory, of Holy Scripture is a message of love and wholeness. To take a few passages which arguably decry my sexuality and my love as abomination is contrary to that message. But…OCICBW.

To take a few passages which arguably decry my sexuality and my love as abomination is contrary to that message.

There is nothing arguable about it.  You cannot stand the Scripture on its head merely because you find its message offensive.  It says what it says.  Toavah is blindingly clear.  And the tortured efforts to make the Scripture say otherwise only make my case that much stronger.

carl

For me, it all comes down to the interpretation of and the place of Scripture.

Absolutely—which is why schism not only will, but must happen.  We are not only two different churches, but two different religions.  At the moment all we’re sharing is buildings—and even that makes no sense anymore.

Over this weekend, any of you who subscribe to first things magazine and have time to read the article entitled, “The Freedom of Theology,” will benefit alongside Matt’s piece here.

So much of this changing-our-minds after someone in our family or a close friend falls under a category that has been identified as, at least problematical, is a problem in the teaching and right doctrine area. For example, why is our church (membership and teaching) on differing sides in the abortion issue, as if we are double-minded or something? Or, why do we have some priests promoting Christ as a way to the Father, some promoting Christ as the way to the Father, and some promoting the asexual Jesus or he/she God, the father? A four-way mind split, from one church. Perhaps because someone had an inconvenient pregnancy that was resolved by an abortion or because someone read a lot of Buddhist materials and concluded that Jesus reigning over all meant that the Buddha was right and Jesus was confused about who he was. Or perhaps because someone will not follow through to the conclusion that anything other than worshiping the one true god is idolatry.

With firm, solid teaching on what the doctrine actually is, we could better practice living as called, even with empathy where required.

RE: “Can it be possible that you are slipping into an hermeneutic of “I could be wrong”?”

He was using a simple “if, then” statement pointing out the consequences of being right.

RE: “For me, it all comes down to the interpretation of and the place of Scripture.”

I agree that this is important—progressives and conservatives don’t have the same foundational worldviews and thus don’t have the same opinion of or interpretation of Scripture.

RE: “IMHO the overarching message, the clear trajectory, of Holy Scripture is a message of love and wholeness.”

Very true—and conservatives believe that supporting or promoting sin is never an action of love or wholeness.

In other words . . . as has been pointed out frequently over the past four years—progressives and conservatives essentially believe the precise opposite of the other in a number of key areas.  And no amount of empathy will really fix that challenge.

My personal opinion is that once the two groups are in different church organizations most of the ire will die down and move its intensity to the country’s general culture, which after all, is actually the larger point of the progressive agenda in TEC anyway.

Dear Matt:

No, I am not trying to imply that the priest was wrong in calling sin, sin.  That is something, especially as a priest, he needed to do.  However, it would have been better - since this person is stating he is a believer to try to follow the Biblical model and try to handle it through the church first before such a public display.  If this judge is claiming to be a Christian, then he should be disciplined through the church - if that fails then it should have gone public.  Perhaps the priest did that - I don’t know - but it’s information not included in the text. 

The second point I made really comes from this Scripture from Galatians 6: 

Dear brothers and sisters, if another believer* is overcome by some sin, you who are godly* should gently and humbly help that person back onto the right path. And be careful not to fall into the same temptation yourself.

I mean I can’t speak for the entire Anglican Communion - I just know I have a real easy time pointing at the sins of others while grossly ignoring my own. 

That doesn’t mean you don’t help try to restore your brother.  It just means you do it realizing you need restoration yourself.

So, it’s not a false dichotomy - we don’t ignore heresy - we just address it humbly realizing we are capable of it ourselves w/o the grace of God.

My son said to me the other day, “Mom, how do churches grow?”  Now, understand my son has gone, been in, participated in church - and even in this Anglican Conflict - all of his life.  He’s hardily a novice in the Faith.  I said, “Well, Christians share their Faith and others come to know Christ - that is how we are supposed to grow.”  He said, “Why isn’t that happening then?”  I should emphasize that my church in comparison to most Anglican churches is VERY evangelical.  We have grown half again since separating from TEC - but my son is correct, it’s mostly by other Christians coming - not by new Christians being created.  So, his question still stands - and it’s a good one.  I find myself thinking that if we do not get serious about ‘denying ourselves, taking up our cross’ then we are really not much different than ‘our worthy opponents’ as far as impacting the planet for Christ. 

So, no, we don’t ‘impact the world’ by being more like it - TEC is flat wrong and needs to be held account for that - no matter the copious flaws I might have in trying to hold them accountable to the Faith.  HOWEVER, we need to realize that it is humility (rather than ‘empathy’) that we do these things - with a full recognition of our own need to change and be more Christ-like.

Does that help clarify?

Carl, I don’t find the message offensive (I actually find the whole of Scripture comforting, inspiring, and a source of great personal strength)—I find the use of such passages to be inconsistent with the larger meaning of Holy Scripture.

I wouldn’t say that we are two different religions, st. anonymous; I would say we are two different interpretations of how our faith should manifest itself in the greater community (i.e., the community outside our doors) and how God’s scandalous love affair with humankind stretches our imaginations beyond all else—and how the meaning of the life, death, and resurrection of our Lord challenges us to a new way of being.

Interesting that I’m writing my sermon on John 10:1-10…

PadreWayne:

Interesting b/c these were the other Scriptures I found today looking for the Galatians reference:

1 Jude:

17 But you, my dear friends, must remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ said.18 They told you that in the last times there would be scoffers whose purpose in life is to satisfy their ungodly desires.19 These people are the ones who are creating divisions among you. They follow their natural instincts because they do not have God’s Spirit in them.
  22 And you must show mercy to* those whose faith is wavering.23 Rescue others by snatching them from the flames of judgment. Show mercy to still others,* but do so with great caution, hating the sins that contaminate their lives.*

1 John 5:

16 If you see a Christian brother or sister* sinning in a way that does not lead to death, you should pray, and God will give that person life. But there is a sin that leads to death, and I am not saying you should pray for those who commit it.17 All wicked actions are sin, but not every sin leads to death.
  18 We know that God’s children do not make a practice of sinning, for God’s Son holds them securely, and the evil one cannot touch them.

So, it is the duty of any Christian to be willing to hold one another to account and to not continue in sin.

Eclipse: “So, it is the duty of any Christian to be willing to hold one another to
account and to not continue in sin.”
Yes. But then we come back to, as Sarah pointed out, the naming of the sin. I, along with most “progressives” (many of whom would also call themselves “orthodox,” by the way, but that’s a different issue…), do not believe that the “clobber verses” speak of the love I have for my partner and a small bit of how we express that love.

I suspect that we would be in agreement, though, that we humans are not the ultimate judge of what is, and what is not, sin. I will certainly trust God to sort that out.

What I take from Fr. Martin’s post is that it is important to not be disagreeable when disagreeing.  It is possible to stand up for the Truth and still try to understand your opponent.

I do not believe that Fr. Wayne Fr. Jake or even Bishop Shori are setting out to destroy the Church or to be faithless to God.  I believe that they are profoundly wrong in the direction they would take the Church, but that they are sincerely wrong.  But I also think that they are being willfully ignorant of the consequences of their actions for the Church. 

It is important to Stand Firm for the Truth.  It is also important to love your enemies and to work to see good in them. 

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Matt: I do see the integrity of your position. And I think you have correctly read what I wrote, for the most part. I think our differences lie mainly in the area of ecclesiology, as I am not persuaded that I am obligated to break ecclesial fellowship with one who teaches falsely on some aspects of sexual morality as long as that person professes faith in the lordship of the risen Christ and can say the creed in good conscience. If I understand your position correctly, you hold that there is an obligation to break fellowship under such conditions. On that I hope we can amicably disagree. But you yourself cite areas of potential disagreement between Christian about which I assume you are capable of feeling quite passionate but which are not inherently church-dividing, and I would suggest that it is the practice of empathy, among other things, that enables you to remain in communion with your opponents on those questions. In any case, I did not mean to imply that empathy is capable of bridging theological gaps that are clearly real and substantial, and on that I you and I agree. However, it seems to me that empathy is a necessary attitude in the process of discerning the true nature of those gaps, and that too often a conclusion is reached by one side or the other, or both, in any given conflict, that the chasm cannot be crossed, when, with the exercise of empathy, a way may be found to do so.

This leads naturally to a consideration of Sarah’s thoughtful comments. Sarah, I think perhaps I was less clear than I would have liked to be in my statement, “Empathy makes the truth easier to see.” I did not mean that empathizing with an opponent makes it easier for him to see the truth of my position, nor does empathy on the part of my opponent help me see the truth in his. So I do not disagree with your observations. What I meant to say was that empathizing with my opponent helps me see the truth about my opponent. It helps me avoid one of the most pernicious logical fallacies and rhetorical errors—the ubiquitous “straw man” argument. You and I both know that not all Episcoplalian Liberals are Spong-loving, Mother Jesus-worshiping members of a Wiccan assembly on the verge of professing Islam. (And, yes, I’m indulging in hyperbole to make a point.) So why do orthodox voices so often sound as if they believe that to be the case? As for authentic empathy from Liberals—I’ll grant you, that’s rare to non-existent. But I’m a glass-half-full kinda guy, so I keep looking for it. But, more to the point, let me underscore once again that I do not see empathy as something one feels. It is something one does. Empathy is not emotional, it is volitional. So I do believe it is imperative to practice empathy toward our opponents. If doing so first reveals that there is in fact an unbridgeable gap, it will then be of strategic benefit. Knowing them more accurately (and that’s all that empathy is) will help engage them (read, defeat them) more effectively.

>blockquote> Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth? Gal 4:16</blockquote>
Hey, it sometimes happens.  Wish it didn’t.

PadreWayne wrote:

IMHO the overarching message, the clear trajectory, of Holy Scripture is a message of love and wholeness. To take a few passages which arguably decry my sexuality and my love as abomination is contrary to that message.

No, Padre, what’s contrary to that message is to fail to tell you that those passages are there to promote your love and wholeness, by warning you against acts that divide you from God. What’s lacking in love is to tell you, “go ahead, God blesses your relationship”, when it’s obvious from those passages that He doesn’t. What’s contrary to that message is if I keep silent when you are in danger. I appeal to you to repent from this sin, as I need constantly to repent from mine. I can’t say this better than Fr Lane did: “I appeal to you to cast yourself on the mercy of Jesus … admit your sin, confess your wrongdoing and turn in humble repentance to the Lord Jesus, who alone can forgive you.” That’s how real love and wholeness are to be found.

PadreWayne :

Wayne, you and I know the Biblical teaching on sexual morality - so let’s not rehash what’s been rehashed a 1000 times.  God does call us (per 1 Corinthians 3) to call each other to account and NOT allow each other to continue to sin .  A Christian has not the right to just ‘let things slide’.  God is pretty clear about that.  So, you might disagree with my assessment but you cannot tell me that it is unGodly to hold to the standard of try to uphold Biblical Truth. 

Homosexuality is a sin - so is lying - so is coveting - so is holding bitterness in one’s heart - adultery - divorce - murder - drunkeness - provoking one’s children to wrath.  All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.  Some of us are more genetic predisposed to one type of sin than another.  So, shall we sin that grace abound?  God Forbid.  We lay down our lives, our natural inclinations, deny ourselves take up our cross and follow Him.  We loose our lives to save it.  Goes completely against every natural inclination we have - but we are trying to become MORE than what we were before we knew Jesus - we are trying to become perfect as He is Perfect.

So, Wayne, I struggle with my own little selfish desires - my tendency to be all ‘about me’ - that’s one of my besetting sins.  I’ll own it.  So, should I continue in it because I’m naturally introverted and am inclined that way?  No, that isn’t the best plan for me, my children, my husband, my family, my church or my community.  I need to decrease so Christ can increase. 

It’s loosing my life - but after long years of learning that lesson I find as I loose it, I actually gain Him.  It’s worth the sacrifice and I’m a better person for it.

How all that applies to your life only you can say.  I will love you as a Brother in Christ regardless.

I have been away for a few hours—what Matt said in #3 & #5 is pertinent—those entrusted with teaching must be orthodox in every area.

When my former rector preached a sermon effectively denying the atoning death of Jesus, my wife and I left our parish of many years, and settled in a neighboring TEC parish (we have about nine in the county), where the Gospel is preached and the rector is focused on teaching discipleship.  It may be the most orthodox parish in the county.  BUT the parish practices open, unfenced communion.

  So what do you do?  We live and worship in a liberal diocese; we are surrounded by progressive, liberal Episcopalians—but know and work with many other traditional conservative folk, too.  And I suppose I have empathy with the concept of open communion, though it is contrary to canon, contrary to 1900 years of catholic practice, anti-ecumenical, and IMHO just bad theology. To me, preaching against the atoning death of Jesus is a deal-breaker; open communion is not.

  But by and large I agree w/ Father Martins; some understanding of the other folks helps to refine your own views.  In fact, I never really paid much attention to the views of Bishop Spong or Marcus Borg until my former rector reiterated their viewpoints.  And I think Fr. Martins is staying in TEC, as we are—at least until the liturgies for blessing same sex unions and the BCP revisions of 2012 are put in place.

We disagree but try not to be disagreeable; when necessary, we try to plant a flag.

Eclipse, you’ve written much that deserves a response, but I have my second sermon for tomorrow to write (Evensong honoring our university students) so it will have to wait (but I thank you for your blessing).
AnglicanXn, though, I cannot let your “those entrusted with teaching must be orthodox in every area” [emphasis mine] go with no response. And that is that I foresee a very small church if “orthodoxy” is required, uniformity insisted upon, disagreement shunned, and variation dismissed. Where, oh where, will you find such people? Dick M’s comment #27 is a helpful commentary.

As I said above somewhere, I consider myself orthodox in many areas (and believe you would, too)—I am Trinitarian, follow the rubrics for Holy Communion (while listening to conversations from both sides), obey my Bishop, preach from the Gospel (probably not quite to your liking, but I rarely stray from the appointed Lectionary. I do not cross my fingers when saying the Creeds. I have a high theology of priesthood while readily admitting to my own faults (and refusing the pedestal). I consider the laity an order of ministry and do my best to encourage such. Our liturgy is fairly Anglo-Catholic. I believe in the Virgin Birth—with God, certainly all things are possible. There are other orthodoxies.
And yet I am a gay man in a committed, permanent, loving, monogamous relationship which I do not believe is sinful.
Therefore, I would not be allowed in your church.
Sigh.
I hope you find what you’re looking for.
Peace.

Fr. Dan,

No time to really reply this evening but I did want to clarify that my position is not that believers “must” leave a heretic church. I have argued that believers must not cooperate or support a heretic church and must differentiate themselves if they remain within it. What I have argued is that believers may but are not obligated to remain within a heretic church. They may leave without commiting schism because such a heretic church is not a church. It is perfectly legitimate to remain inside so long as you do not collaborate and it is perfecly legitimate to leave.

I have also argued that the Episcopal Church not only has false teachers within her boundaries, she has embraced heresy in an official capacity first in 2003 and confirmed that decision in 2006.

Matt’
you told Eclipse
“thanks Eclipse, I do not agree with you, I think, about the australian priest. I think he was absolutely correct in what he said and how he said it.”

Have you read the second letter from Rev Lane to Justice Kirby? Lane’s first letter is a model of what should be said. The second adopts an unfortunate sacastic tone. On the other hand Archbishop Peter jensen handles his response extremely well.
You can view the letters in a link from the original article at smh.com.au.

PadreWayne (#28)

And yet I am a gay man in a committed, permanent, loving, monogamous relationship which I, do not believe is sinful (Emphasis mine)

As a priest in the Church, you (of all people) should know that sin does not depend on our definitions.  If it did, then there would be no sin because we usually don’t set out to sin, we talk ourselves (or let ourselves be talked) into sinning.  We lie to ourselves that this is not really sin because of .....

What matters is what God thinks is sin.  How do we know what God thinks is sin?  Well, we have three sources (traditionally).  The first is natural law.  The second is Holy Scripture, and the third is the teaching of the Church.  When you contradict all three, then you are probably sinning. 

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

FrDan:  While I’m sure that not all those in TEC that are liberal in matters of sexuality are “Mother Jesus” worshiping Spong lovers, it would appear that either the majority of the national leadership is for all practical purposes “Mother Jesus” worshiping Spong lovers, else they would not have elected one of them to be the Presiding Bishop.  Furthermore, given the PB’s running roughshod over canons to remove dissentors, and given the proposed changes in canons making it much easier to remove dissentors, I would propose that things will over the next 30 years or so be very unfriendly in TEC to those that are not Mother Jesus types.

As for liberals bringing up the scarecrow of TEC turning into a small, irrelevent church were it to rigidly enforce orthodoxy:  I’ll I can say is that it is such a laugh, considering that, as far as churches in America go, it is already small and irrelevent, and leads the charts on the fasted declining churches.

Natural law?  Actually, I think the whole ‘natural law’ concept was a bad idea, and a large part of what originally lead to this mess.  After all, homosexuality (like adultry, polyamory, serial monogamy, pederasty…) is perfectly natural.  So are lust, gluttony, anger…

non-essential issues facing the church

I really want someone to prove, yes, prove that the Docetism, Pelagianism, Apollinarianism, Montanism, Nestorianism, and Arianism (not to mention biblical ignorance, duplicity, mendacity and a host of other bad behaviors) that are running rampant in TEC are non-essential issues.  Prove. It.  Anyone?

Phil #31—1) Natural law is a straw man. 2) I’ve already commented on Scripture. 3) The Episcopal Church (which you may or may not agree is a church or the one I should be listening to) respects my faithful relationship and has gone to great lengths to explain why (see: To Set Our Hope on Christ).
I agree completely, however, that God is the ultimate decision maker, and I have to trust that I’m doing the right thing in God’s eyes—not yours. OCICBW. So could you.

Andrew A #32—Let’s drop the whining about the Mother Jesus reference. It has been explicated many times elsewhere and completely supported in the tradition of the church. “Spong lovers”? Aw, c’mon. Prove your point.

Athanasius Returns #34—First you need to prove your assertion that D, P, A, M, N, and A are “running rampant in TEC.” (Whoa, everyone, get ready for a long commentary if AR bites!) Then some of us may start refuting your charge. If there’s enough hours in the day.

Hi Dan Martins—I’m not certain I understand what you are saying.  On the one hand, when you say ““Knowing them more accurately (and that’s all that empathy is) will help engage them (read, defeat them) more effectively” I agree. 

And if that is the case, then I have empathized in a steady and consistent fashion over the past four years.  It certainly has not served to lighten the rhetorical tone.  Rather, my empathizing has served to inevitably intensify the rhetorical tone.  But still—I agree with you. 

But when you say this—“However, it seems to me that empathy is a necessary attitude in the process of discerning the true nature of those gaps, and that too often a conclusion is reached by one side or the other, or both, in any given conflict, that the chasm cannot be crossed, when, with the exercise of empathy, a way may be found to do so”—you imply that yes, empathy’s purposes is to “cross the chasm” of difference I presume.

I have no desire to cross the chasm.  My empathy and the lovely interaction over the past four years, as well as the observation and steadily acquired evidence that has been posted in now thousands of posts right here and at other excellent blogs has indeed demonstrated that the chasm is far far far wider than I had first dreamed, and that the gospel that progressive Episcopalians believe is utterly opposed to the one that I believe, such that said gospels are irreconcilable.

Here we get to another word that appears to be freely tossed around by various players, including lately by Brian Cox, which is “reconciliation”—an interesting word that needs to be defined.

If “reconciliation” is about being happy to spend time hiking or in conversation with some nice folks who, say, are Marxists, or Wiccans, than that’s fine.  I’m “reconciled” with many many many people in TEC and out of TEC.

But if “reconciliation” means being able to play nicely together in an organization whose groups hold entirely and mutually opposing missions—then no, we’re not “reconciled” nor will we be “reconciled” ever.

There really can only be so much reasonable discussion between addicts and non-addicts about whether addiction is a good thing, blessed, etc.  Rationalizations are endless.  I’ve heard stories about people being ordered to diversion programs for DUI offenses and when asked about the benefits of drinking, persistently argued about the positive health effects!  The question here isn’t whether alcohol is an evil but whether getting drunk and driving a car is an evil.  Courts cannot address the question of a life out of wack but the Church must.
There isn’t a question here about whether it is OK to chose a communion of the flesh rather than Communion with God and God’s people.  God hasn’t done a new thing and blessed Sodom and Gomorrah.  I think there is some question, however, that might be usefully addressed regarding that for which God has given us sexuality. For this to be a Christian dialog, we would have to begin with a Christian understanding, of Holy Scripture and what the Church means by the teachings of Holy Scripture.  There is no value to us in arguing without even a common definition of words.  None.If we were to have that argument, and it really is outside the scope of this blogsite, I think the question for Christians (and I do not include those who have visibly separated themselves from Christian communion by the choise of another) is “Is sex given only for generation of children or is there likewise fundamental, theological choice for unity that answers God’s observation that man being alone was not good.“Again, serious Christian theological exploration requires setting aside all the rabbit trails.  There is genuine theology to be done ... I would not anticipate “new” answers when theology is done faithfully.  The point of Christian theology is not a matter of accommodating religion to our needs.  It is a response to the experience of God in Christian community, for the sake of praise, for the sake of enkindling the fire of love in ourselves and in others. It is not so much argument but communion with the Holy Spirit. So if someone comes up to you and says, “Let’s dialog over a bowl of miso soup while we burn this incense to the genius of the Emperor”, don’t be clueless.  If someone says, “Let’s go get drunk together and don’t worry, I’ll drive,” think about what is being said. Time and life is precious. We are not to put others under condemnation but that doesn’t mean that there is no such thing as a fool.  Guile comes from a polluted heart.  Wisdom does not.  “Be ye, therefore, innocent as doves and wise as serpents.”

You all must be placed in a reeducation camp.

Wow….I feel sorry for anyone who posts after Sarah and monologistos.

What kind of command of English would you have to have, and what depth of theological understanding to add anything to the above?

Padre Wayne #35, re: “The Episcopal Church ... respects my faithful relationship and has gone to great lengths to explain why (see: To Set Our Hope on Christ).”—-

“To Set Our Hope on Christ was, I think most people would recognize, not our best effort.” – Katharine Jefferts-Schori, DioSC Clergy Day

Matt+  Many thanks for once again getting to the very heart of the matter in your original article and subsequent comments.  The two “sides” in this Anglican spiritual battle, as both you and Sarah beautifully point out, have irreconcilable truth claims which have been increasingly separating us for the 30 plus years of my adult life.  Both GC 2003 and 2006 were watershed events which confirmed this irreconcilability to me.  This is what the term, “tearing the fabric of the Anglican Communion at its deepest level” means.  The tearing has happened and is exacerbated daily by the leadership of TEC and other “progressives” in the Anglican Communion.  We now know without a doubt that we cannot all live together in some kind of polite denial of how deeply held our opposing world views actually are, nor does our faith require it.

#35, PadreWayne,

Apologies for my slower than usual reply; if only blogging could be done while working on other things!  At any rate, a beginning look at heresies in TEC can be seen (quite congently and convincingly put by Fr. Kennedy, BTW) here.  As to biblical ignorance, how about scriptural admonitions against going to law (court) against a Christian brother or sister, see 1 Corinthians 6:1-10?? By accounts, such things are essential issues.

HeartAfire

What kind of command of English would you have to have, and what depth of theological understanding to add anything to the above?

I be a thinkin’ that me’s useage of Egleash lingo is jus’ as fine as them guys.  You’sa tryin’ to say something badly about me wording?

Sulking,

:(

I often quote Alexander Pope:

Vice is a monster of so frightful mien
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
But seen too oft, familiar with its face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.

This seems to me a true observation about a danger in some kinds of empathy.  First we do “endure,” and then “pity,” and then “embrace” that which we originally knew as a frightful “monster.”  This is a sad prospect for young people (and others) today, who are being taught to embrace it.  No wonder many Episcopal church people with children have been among the first to flee (as I believe).

PadreWayne - I’ve read (and re-read) “To Set Our Hope on Christ.”  I cannot see any argument in that “glorious” work that cannot be used to deny scripture and embrace any other sin.

I do, however, like the way you just decided the Natural Law (God’s design in creation) is a strawman and you just ignore Holy Scripture by saying “I’ve already talked about that.”  Have you ever thought of running for political office?  Natural Law is not a strawman.  Claiming that all who support blessing SSU’s are spongian unitarians is a strawman.  Natural Law is God’s revelation to us.  The apostolic fathers called it “The Book of Nature.”  Holy Scripture is very clear that God’s design for human sexual expression is that it is for marriage between one man and one woman.  This is expounded in Genesis, the gospels, the Epistles, and the Prophets.  Finally, TECUSA is decidedly not the Church.  It is (at least for now) part of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  In so far as it has left catholic teaching, it is becomming a mere denomination.  Can you show me where, in the Apostles’ teaching, we are encouraged to bless same sex unions?

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

I can’t help but wonder what would happen if there was some incontrovertible new-found revelation from God or Christ that homosexual activity is indeed sinful.  Would most of the GLBT community quit being gay (in their sexual behavior) or quit being Christian?

#43 Eclipse, I had to laugh when I read HeartofFire’s remark in the first place.  Did you notice all the grammatical and spelling errors in my post?  Half the time I forget what I’m talking about before I get through with a sentence.  I guess I’ve been listening (or half listening) to myself for so long, I’m not very interested in what I have to say.  I will try to pay more attention to as to not show my age quite so much.  For examples of good writing, look to yourself and Sara and many others here.  I think in these convoluted ways so it isn’t so much good writing as bad reporting.

Phil, I commend to you Sacred Unions by +Tom Breidenthal.

Can you show me where, in the Apostles’ teaching, we are encouraged to bless same sex unions?

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Phil, I commend to you Sacred Unions by +Tom Breidenthal.

Uh, PadreWayne?  Breidenthal is not an Apostle.  Please answer the question asked of you.

Tom Breidenthal ... hmm ... may I also refer people to Arius if you’re interested in Christology?

Empathy should lead to charitable separation not to “unity through diversity” or being blindly loyal to an institution.
EDS

It’s probably irrelevant, and even off-topic!, but Good Shepherd, Tomball, Texas experienced the Episcopalian “empathy” in full force yesterday.  Bp Wimberly & the Dio of Tx denied us the opportunity to vote on realignment - So we voted with our feet and wallets. 

The offering plate was nearly empty, with an estimated 540 in attendance over three services.  Next Sunday, they will try to hold one service.  St. Timothy Anglican, Tomball will start their services on the 20th.

God Bless Ya’ll !
Aggie, Class of ‘70
Bloggin’ My Life Away!

Breidenthal is not an apostle.

OK, how about Judas Iscariot?  Tradition has it he was a Zealot who put his personal agenda before Jesus.  And that he was a thief.  Maybe J.I. can be the patron saint of the Schori Agenda.

RE: the comments above referencing my suggestion to Phil that he check out +Breidenthal’s Sacred Unions. Phil had said that he found “To Set Our Hope On Christ” to be lacking, and so I was offering him another resource. I certainly know that +Breidenthal is not an apostle. A saint, perhaps, and an evangelist, but his age precludes him being one of the original Twelve.

Padre Wayne, your comment had nothing to do with what Phil asked. But that’s OK, we’ll take it from that that you *can’t* provide an answer to Phil’s question.

“off topic perhaps”, but not to be missed.  GG

Dear Aggie, #52.

Thanks for the link to your blog, it is a wonderful first-hand story.

Blessings to you and all your fellow Anglicans.

Grannie Gloria

I can not help but juxtapose +N.T. Wright’s thoughts on “communion,”  as elucidated in the writing noted (http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=297),  with the recent thread of Matt Kennedy+ and Dan Martins+

First, I should say, I disagree with Matt+ on whether one should walk with those one sees as heretics.  I believe this because I am unwilling to affirm that my reading of scripture is correct for all times and places, and, although scripture may be inerrant or infallible, the church’s reading may not be either. So I did see Martins+  thoughts on empathy as far more helpful.  Empathy as a verb, not a noun.  And then I placed that discussion in the light of these words from +N.T. Wright on covenant:

It is in the actual face-to-face meeting of those who recognize Jesus in one another that covenant membership is enacted, is known for what it is. This chapter should lie near the heart of all discussion of koinonia, of the nature of Christian fellowship….And perhaps, as we walk on the road, not now to Emmaus but to Lambeth, we need to be alert for the stranger who comes alongside, who gives us a fresh perspective on the scriptures themselves, and then leaves with a broken loaf to remind them of who he was and is, and of what </i>koinonia </i> with him and with one another would mean.

  I hoped that what Fr. Martins meant in his comment: “What I meant to say was that empathizing with my opponent helps me see the truth about my opponent,”  was that empathy was not recognizing so much what my opponent thinks but who he is and working to see it.  But then I was very sad to read his further comment: </blockquote> “So I do believe it is imperative to practice empathy toward our opponents. If doing so first reveals that there is in fact an unbridgeable gap, it will then be of strategic benefit. Knowing them more accurately (and that’s all that empathy is) will help engage them (read, defeat them) more effectively”.</blockquote>  If this is the motivation for what we do when we encounter our opponent, I don’t believe that the koinoniaof which Wright speaks is possible.

PadreWayne,
I’ll read Breidenthal if you’ll read Gagnon’s “The Bible and Homosexual Practice.”

I still await exposition on the Apostles’ teaching where same sex relationships can be blessed by the Church or that homosexual sex is designed by God.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Sarah,
I’m having trouble connecting the words you wrote in your comment [9] above with the profound empathy you expressed in <a/ href=http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/strategery_101_defining_the_terms/ >your post on “Worthy Opponents”</a> that is provided as a link for all users at registration to understand the comment policy:

Each of us is a part of that Great Corruption. And each of us bear the image of God. We do not even lose the image of God when we perform the worst crimes, torture, and rape, and cold, calculated murder of innocents. That is why, even if we must treat such people as dangerous “wild animals” who have cunning and coldness—and thus restrain them as best as we are able—we also treat them [again as we are able to with the safety of others and ourselves in mind] with dignity and respect.
...

Furthermore, each one of our Worthy Opponents—just like each one of us—has a personal history. It is a personal history that involves some golden, summer days of warmth and security and freedom and personal success. And it is a personal history marked by great suffering and pain. Each one of our Worthy Opponents was a small child, with parents and siblings usually, and middle school, and strange family histories, and periods of awkwardness and rejection by peers, and terrible, shocking, horrific times of pain and trauma.

...

I suspect that if we could peel back a curtain and sample just a few days of childhood from another’s life, we would be filled with sadness for what both our friends and enemies have suffered.

People are who they are for a reason. As we consider our Worthy Opponents, it becomes clear that some of them actually *hate* us. They hate our ideas, and since we represent those ideas “in the flesh”, they also hate us. As the faces of those who are the most bitter and hateful file before our mind’s eyes [and you know who they are, because you read their writings and see them at General Convention and hear their words in interviews]—we need to recognize that they didn’t simply spring out fully formed from the ground, but that they arrived with years, decades, scores of years, and generations of experiences and ideas and teaching and examples backing up who they have become right now, at this instant.

Sarah wrote: “As we consider our Worthy Opponents, it becomes clear that some of them actually *hate* us. They hate our ideas, and since we represent those ideas “in the flesh”, they also hate us.”  I can not understand why this statement is either logical or true.  I do not see people as their ideas or even the sum of their ideas.  Maybe I had a different philosophy of man class.

RE: “I can not understand why this statement is either logical or true.”

Well—when people hate you for what you represent, I don’t think that’s particularly logical or rational.

But I certainly believe that it happens—amongst all types of people, not just Worthy Opponents.

But if you don’t believe it happens, that’s fine.

RE: “I’m having trouble connecting the words you wrote in your comment [9] above with the profound empathy you expressed in your post on “Worthy Opponents”  . . . “

Not certain why—one can read both comments and not see inconsistencies, and the principles expressed in both can certainly be fulfilled with congruence and consistency.

[I assume by comment #9, you mean #7?]

I tried that empathy thing once… it was much worked much like the listening process where is was expected to empathize until I agreed with the other’s position.

Sarah Hi:

I’d be respondin’ to that there comment but me ability to be a communicatin’ ain’t so hot so I’s be best jus’ not like postin’ a single thingy deal.