Bonnie Anderson’s Letter to the Panel of Reference

I look forwqrd to reading the up coming posts on this letter…The hide of her.
Brian

Another idiot bureaucrat who is convinced that TEC’s polity can trump all critiques and questions pertaining to its canons and resolutions. It is obvious that Bonnie totally ignored the Panel of Reference until it actually made a decision that she does not like. Had the panel sided with TEC, Ms. Anderson would have been all smiles and would have waved that piece of paper in Bishop Iker’s face.

The procedures and working methodology of the Panel were set out for all who were interested to access and study. If Bonnie did not avail herself of the opportunity to do so, that is her problem, not a deficiency on the part of the Panel of Reference. Instead of writing harpy letters to the Panel, she might have done better to ask the apparatchiks at 815 how the Panel’s investigation was performed.  Surley some of them had some input into the process. Perhaps even the Presiding Bishop’s Office had input. Why doesn;t Bonnie ask them?

This little letter was made for public consumption and demonstrates anew just how theologically bankrupt, arrogant, and ignorant the so-called “leadership” of TEC is. If every executive decision has to be signed off on by the HOB and the HOD, then I submit that nothing can be accomplished by 815 in between General Convention sessions. Is this what Bonnie is angling for - a takeover by the House of Deputies?  She is more than welcome to it.

Allan
Your comment of how theologically bankrupt,arrogant, and ignorant the so-called leadership of TEC are, seemed to hit the nail on the head.I think arrogance No 1 in this case.
Brian

Allen, I’m not sure that this letter was designed for public consumption. It appears to be written directly to the members of the Panel and doesn’t seem to be publicised anywhere I can find.

If that’s the case then it looks like the TEC hierarchy are naíve enough to think that others will accept this sort of guff even in private correspondance.

It reads to me like:

“sorry, our policies and procedures won’t allow us to do this

oh dear

such a shame

go sod off”

sorry guys, being British I’m not sure if “s*d off” is acceptable to you wonderful people over the pond. Apologies if it’s not.

“I respectfully request that the panel acknowledge that lack of full understanding of the polity of The Episcopal Church may have resulted in recommendations by the panel that would be antithetical to our polity and therefore not appropriate.”

Regular Guy Translation- “Dammit, we’re Americans!  Can’t you understand we do whatever we want to please ourselves at any given moment??”

Regular Guy Translation-“Dammit, we Americans! Can’t you understand we do whatever we want to please ourselves at any given moment??” AMEN! How true. We did that 30 years ago when we unilaterally authorized WO. For nearly 500 years the AC has proudly proclaimed that we have the same Apostolic Orders before and after the Reformation—meaning that our ORders and those of Rome and Constantinople are one and the same. Therefore Episcopalians had no right to go off and change Apostolic ORder without consultations not only with the rest of the AC but with Rome and Constantinople as well, but Nooooo we had to prove that as American Episcopalians we can do just about anything we please and to hell with the rest of the Church. The American Church is just one province of the AC and it is about high time that it begins to realize that there is a Church outside the borders of the good old USA. God help us all.

This letter was written by, or with substantial input from, lawyers. Therefore, there is considerable conflation between (1) the substantive argument, on the theological merits, of whether WO is a good idea, and (2) the procedure TEC followed to determine its position concerning point (1). Ms. Anderson’s letter says, in effect, that inasmuch as TEC followed its procedures properly [point (2)], the decision it reached with regard to WO was correct on the merits [point (1)]. That is fallacious logic. The fact that TEC follows its own internal decision-making procedures is evidence neither for nor against the theological merits of WO.

The real purpose of the letter is, in my view, to tell the ABC and the Panel that TEC is not going to obey the Panel’s recommendation. Because Ms. Anderson does not want to address the merits of WO, she focuses on the procedures TEC followed.

I think this says it all, at least as long as the “reappraisers” have the majority.

“It appears that the panel has misunderstood our polity regarding the primacy of General Convention ...........”

Grannie Gloria

David,

Not to worry.  We may be Yanks, but being Anglicans, we all need to be reasonably bilingual.  Your colourful figure of speech was spot on!

APB

As a lawyer, I’ve written and received many letters like this over the years.  They are not the kind of letter you send to your friends or the kind of letter designed to produce action.  It is a letter sent right before litigation starts.  There is always a flurry of such letters.  Everyone wants a final shot at tweaking the record before it is fixed in concrete for history.

“the evidence that support for the ordination of women in The Episcopal Church is extremely widespread and strong and joyfully embraced”

minus the million and half people plus that have left TEC since the early 70’s.

Ryan+

Generally at that time The Episcopal Church did not think the 1976 Canons were permissive or ambiguous. Nonetheless, to address any possible misunderstanding, in 1997 General Convention, with the concurrence of both the House of Bishops and the House of Deputies adopted additional Canons intended to put to rest the question of whether a woman’s gender could be used to disqualify her from ordination.

This is simply a lie.  From <a >here</a>:

In 1977, the House of Bishops addressed this matter. It said,
<blockquote>The meaning of a law involves not only the wording of the legislation, but also the intent of the legislation. Did General Convention intend (1) to make certain that dioceses prepared to ordain women were assured that they had the approval of The Episcopal Church in going ahead or (2) to require such action even by dioceses not yet prepared to act nor persuaded that they could rightly do so? By the nature of the case absolute proof is impossible, but majority opinion would seem to support the first understanding. At any rate there are adequate grounds for seeing at least sufficient doubt about the intent of the legislation, so as to inhibit insistence that women priests be accepted by all and at once. ( 1979 Journal, p. B-193. )

The House of Bishops then went on to observe, “One is not a disloyal Anglican if he or she abstains from implementing the decision or continues to be convinced it was in error”. Likewise, the House pointed out, “We hold fast to the Anglican tradition which seeks to distinguish between what is required or not required of believers.” In conclusion, the House stated:

In the light of all of this and in keeping with our intention at Minneapolis, weaffirm that no Bishop, Priest, Deacon or Lay Person should be coerced or penalized in any manner, nor suffer any canonical disabilities as a result of the 65th General Convention’s action with regard to the ordination of women to the priesthood or episcopate. (1979 Journal, p. B-195.)

The Statement adopted by the House of Bishops in 1977 was prepared by the Committee onTheology of the House. Thereafter, the House prepared and distributed to the whole American church a Pastoral Letter which declared, “The Minnesota Convention sought to permit but not to coerce. We affirm that no members of the church should be penalized for conscientious objection to, or support of, the ordination of women” 11979 Journal, p. B226.) The legislation was to permit but not to coerce, or mandate. The legislation was seen as permissive only by the first House of General Convention to adopt the canon, and was so seen less than a year after the vote.
</blockquote>

—+Wantland’s paper among the FW exhibits

Dear, sweet 815 is playing Humpty-Dumpty again.

Publius,
One might argue that Ms. Anderson does not need to argue the substantive issue.  Procedurally, she is correct and this makes engagement in the argument an academic one.  The substantive argument you raise is one which she would argue is not for her to engage in with the the Panel but rather for the General Convention to take up. 
If she were procedurally incorrect, then one could argue she is refusing to confront the issue of WO head on. 

The real point in this whole matter is how TEC has designed a polity which very effectively obfuscates any endeavor which makes it accountable and respectful of the bonds of affections which it reportedly has with the worldwide AC.  Clearly when polity is used in this fashion its more consistent with the tactics of a boilerroom stockbroker or a used car salesman.  The polity of this church effectively says we have a schism which has been in existence for a long time between TEC and the AC.  Unfortunately, it is only of recent that this schism has been surfaced in this type of machinations.  I’m amazed that rather than being ashamed of having to use these, Ms. Anderson brandishes them with cunning smugness.

Bonnie is sooo right on - TEC does have a different polity and culture than other Anglican Provinces. Here is one instance of that difference - an example of what a gathering of bishops can do when they are really acting as leaders for their church. It describes the amazing process by which the Church of Nigeria decided they needed to “fill in the blank spaces” in Nigeria with bishops called to be missionaries. 

CHURCH ON THE MOVE: Church of Nigeria elects 20 new bishops in one night
....
Ninety-three Anglican bishops most wearing traditional purple cassocks gathered in the chapel of the Ibru Ecumenical Retreat Center at Agbarha Otor. The Retreat Center is a sprawling complex of modern air-conditioned buildings surrounded by palm trees in the middle of the farmland of the Delta State in the Niger Delta region approximately 6 hours drive from Lagos. The theme for this annual retreat was “Empowered Leadership” a title that seemed most appropriate in light of the events that were about to unfold.
....
They began with an hour of energetic intercessory prayer for the nation and the church that was punctuated by spiritual choruses and loud shouts of praise. This was followed by a traditional service of Holy Communion and then the work began. Earlier in the meeting large maps of the various regions had been carefully examined and twenty new strategic areas for mission reviewed. A committee had worked with neighboring dioceses and regional leaders to choose a location for the new work and also gather the necessary resources for housing, transportation and financial support – 3 million Naira per annum for the first three years (approximately 12,000 pound sterling). Each area was then briefly described and the particular dynamics discussed – for example some of the areas are situations where there is virtually no Christian presence, others are places where new universities have been established, and still others where an influx of refugees present a unique challenge. Nominations were then made.

All of those nominated were clergy who had a demonstrated aptitude for dynamic evangelism and church planting. In some cases as many as four candidates were proposed and then the ballots distributed. As a team of election monitors including Bishop Martyn Minns, one of the newest missionary bishops, carefully counted the ballots there was a time for prayer and vigorous hymn singing before the results were announced. This pattern was followed for the next five and a half hours until 3:30am! By which time all twenty new bishops had been chosen – nineteen will serve in new missionary districts and one will fill a vacancy in an existing diocese. “You have taken three of my best clergy!” exclaimed Bishop Ben Kwashi of the Diocese of Jos where three new missionary districts have been established. His big smile however made it clear that he was proud to be part of this remarkable night….

For the entire news release…

It is an immensely patronizing letter in its phrasing of correcting “misperceptions”, of how the panel misunderstands this and that.  The only thing that leaps off the page, however, is that the President of the HoD has misunderstood that the panel was not telling ECUSA what it had to do; it was recommending some things for it to do.  There has never been any thought by the ABC or the panel that they can force ECUSA to do anything.  The panel has made its recommendations, and ECUSA can put them in the dustbin if it wishes.  What ECUSA has largely failed to understand all along is that there are consequences for doing so.  Things that the primates can do that ECUSA cannot control.  Counciliar polity does not mean that each can do what it wishes without consequence.  There may not be enforcement power to it, but there is the power to include or exclude.  And all the railing and gnashing at the ABC such as the Marshall tirade does not change that one bit.  In fact, it just makes the choice before the Anglican Communion a little clearer.  That so many in ECUSA continue to fail to grasp this speaks volumes.

I’m with Mark McCall on this one:

“In all these years no one, including Bishop Iker, has been brought up on disciplinary charges for the alleged violation of the Canons for refusing to ordain, license, accept into the diocese or approve women as rectors. We are clear that women are not to be denied access to ordination. We have been tolerant of Bishop Iker. “

sounds like a warning to me.  Revisionism is on the march!

“If the percentage of people supporting or opposing the ordination of women is important to the panel’s analysis, then the panel’s incorrect inferences that a substantial number of people in the Church oppose the ordination of women should be corrected. If any of the panel’s recommendations were influenced or based upon this misinformation then the panel should revisit those conclusions with the evidence that support for the ordination of women in The Episcopal Church is extremely widespread and strong and joyfully embraced.”

I doubt percentages of any kind played into the POR’s analysis. I bet they don’t run numbers like politicians do….

The letter is bureaucratic non-speak.  It also illustrates the writer is process-oriented rather than goal-oriented.  Sad.

Notice that she says nothing of sending Grand Inquisitors to Fort Worth, Quincy, and San Joaquin to “enforce” WO.  Or letters being sent to our dioceses by the PB’s lawyer.  “Bishop Iker has been tolerated.”?

Yet another example of the grand idolatry that is episcopalianism.

In the spirit of radical hospitality and inclusiveness:

We have been tolerant of Bishop Iker.

Mighty big of them, what?  Can you feel the oh-so-Anglican love and respect they have for his “alternate view?”  Me either.

Hubris ad absurdum.

I take this as clear evidence of intent to walk apart from the AC.

I can’t tell you how happy this letter from Bonnie Anderson—for all in the Anglican Communion to see—makes me, only not for the reasons that she might think.

She rightly says that being inclusive and tolerant of dioceses who do not ordain women violates the canons of the Episcopal church.

And the Anglican Communion says that provinces need to be inclusive and tolerant of dioceses who do not ordain women.

So . . . I wonder what that means for the Episcopal church’s place in the Anglican Communion.

Every bit of this, folks, is nothing more than two angry dogs circling one another, checking one another out before . . . bad things happen.  We’re still on the “pre-hostilities” and things will get much much worse before closure occurs.  We’re still currently at the stage where the two sides are staring across the battlefield, painting their faces blue and mooning one another, before the charge is sounded.

The one thing I can say is that at least we Episcopalians don’t live in boring times.  A letter like this just gets my blood stirring, like champagne in a flute glass.

Signed,

A Happy Woman!

Richardc,

You are of course right that Ms. Anderson doesn’t need to argue the merits of WO. Perhaps I mistakenly misframed the juxtaposition. The Panel is discussing how TEC treats its minorities and the conciliar nature of decisions in the Communion. The Panel is saying, in effect, “We think it would be wise to treat your dissenters on WO in the way described by the Dallas Plan. Moreover, that way comports well with the process of reception under way in the Communion concerning WO”.

In response, Ms. Anderson says, in effect, “TEC followed its procedures. You can’t tell us what to do”. My point is that Anderson’s answer doesn’t really answer the Panel’s concern. This is a well known lawyer’s trick: argue procedure to avoid a substantive debate, if your position on the substance is weak. Craig Goodrich shows us how weak Anderson’s position really is.

In Christ Jesus may we move together in the important work of reconciliation and peace.

Translation:

(With pistol to the Panel’s collective head) “You WILL reconcile yourself to My culture, MY polity, and MY point of view!”

Now THAT’S true reconciliation!

She just told the POR to go to Hell!

“You WILL reconcile yourself to My culture, MY polity, and MY point of view!”

That has been the strategy of TEC towards Fort Worth and others for the last 20 plus years.  Regardless of your position on W.O. you can’t deny historically the patient process of removing dissention from the ranks.  Almost half the bishops voted against it in 76.  25-30 stood publicly against it for several years.  Organizations were formed to try to maintain the catholic view of Holy Orders.  In each case, a diocesan was replaced with someone that was on board with the exception of FW, Quincy, and S.J.  This was done from pressure both internal and external to each diocese.  The massive exodus from TEC over the last 30 years and the rise in continuing churches is in part evidence of the quiet coercion that took place.

The task forces of 2000 and the actions of 97 simply take the “quiet” out of the coercion.

Regardless of whether charges are brought against the three bishops represented above, the actions of 1997 make it clear that no diocese will ever elect another Bishop Iker.  One of the reasons we made this appeal was to address this very concern. 

Along those lines, to my friends in South Carolina…why wait any longer???

R+

The truth is that the Panel of Reference did not consult anyone in Fort Worth except Bishop Iker.
The truth is that the Panel of Reference, like the Windsor group, did not understand the polity of TEC—Eames admitted it.
Having this Panel of Reference judge our General Convention is like asking Jack Spong to judge Stand Firm in Faith.

TBWSF - that is not the truth at all.

I was part of the consulation process along with about five others from Fort Worth.  I know from the correspondance that Frank Griswold and David Booth Beers were consulted, responded, and accepted several opportunities to correct, verify, or adjust their statements.  There was a tremendous amount of consultation over and extensive amount of time.  The panel did not just come up with this stuff on a whim. 

  I guess you were just hoping that they only looked at +Iker’s point of view.  Get your facts straight.

R+

I believe that Claude Payne, retired Bishop of Texas, is a member of the Panel of Refernce.  He should have some familiarity with the polity of TEC.

Why are you blocking postings that disagree with you?  Isn’t that rather dishonest?

Bruce Garner, Atlanta

The truth is that the Panel of Reference did not consult anyone in Fort Worth except Bishop Iker.

I suppose you believe that because that is so patently what TEC does all the time. You’ll have to pardon me for not believing this for a moment. It is so nice to see all voices being heard for a change, instead of just the one really loud one.

Why are you blocking postings that disagree with you?  Isn’t that rather dishonest?

We’re not blocking anything, Bruce. We don’t review comments before they appear. Have you had trouble posting? I noticed a server slowdown a few minutes ago - try it again if you were having problems.

What, doesn’t everybody “get it”? 

Absolutely EVERYTHING in the WORLD is supposed to live and die by the “polity” of the Episcopal church. 

Oh, that pesky Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral-thingy…

Why are you blocking postings that disagree with you?  Isn’t that rather dishonest?  Bruce Garner, Atlanta

Oh my!  And here we have been told by Jake and Elizabeth that this is not dishonest but their right!

“Why are you blocking postings that disagree with you?  Isn’t that rather dishonest?”
Besides the point that your assertion of blocking is, according the administrator, not true, is it dishonest when, say, a revisionist Diocesan website removes postings that it disagrees with?  I might not like it, but I’m not sure that it is dishonest unless they deny they do that sort of thing.

Everybody calm down… nobody’s blocking anybody’s posts. Our <strike>slapdash</strike> carefully-crafted comments policy is at the bottom of every thread. Besides, Jake can vouch for the fact that we don’t block comments we disagree with, and Tom Woodward’s comment here is proof of that.

Bruce, if a comment of yours didn’t post, it was a momentary glitch in the system; private-message me if you continue to have problems.

TBWSF - The truth is that the Panel of Reference did not consult anyone in Fort Worth except Bishop Iker.

Sorry, I misread your quote.  Now I see that your claiming that the PoC did not talk to anyone with “direct connections” to 815 (Click, Sherrod, Via Media types).  They only took consultation from the Bishop, Assisting Bishop, Canon Theologian, President of the Standing Committee, and the other duly elected members of the Standing Committee.  How short sighted.

R+

“Painting their faces blue and mooning one another”....

Boy, now I REALLY wish I could go to the Mere Anglicanism conference!!   

Just a little leaven in the bread…

Another dog bites man story.  Fr. Ian got it right: “Hubris ad absurdum.”

As for Bruce Garner’s problems, he must have confused Stand Firm with liberal sites who pull posts that don’t agree with their party line.  Conservative sites don’t generally do this sort of thing.  Of course, this is standard play for liberals.  They promise conservatives that wo will be local option and then revoke that option a few years later.  Fortunately, conservatives now see how the liberals play and we won’t fall for that one again as ecusa is now trying to apply this strategy for those inclined to homosexual behavior.

Another response to Bonnie Anderson could be that the Anglican Communion waited for three years for ecusa to do things according to our polity and that wait was for naught.

“If the percentage of people supporting or opposing the ordination of women is important to the panel’s analysis, then the panel’s incorrect inferences that a substantial number of people in the Church oppose the ordination of women should be corrected.”

Interpretation: the panel should understand that ecusa has already run off most of those who disagree with women’s ordination.

TBWSF notes that the PoR may not have understood the polity of TEC.  But the polity of TEC is irrelevant.  The point is that there is a serious controversy in the church, and the PoR suggests a resolution to it that the Panel—as a quasi-judicial body—believes to be fair, Anglican, and in keeping with the conflict-resolution approach of the Church catholic.  How precisely TEC goes about implementing the suggested resolution is not the Panel’s concern, nor is (for the most part) the etiology of the conflict.

The whole +Wentland paper, at the link I gave above, is worth reading.  It amounts to a decisive refutation of Ms Anderson’s airy assertion that the canon was always mandatory.  One interesting question is, since this paper formed a prominent part of DioFW’s submission to the Panel, why Ms Anderson believed that anyone connected with the Panel (or with the Communion at all, for that matter) would find her assertion credible.

“I believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church”.

There are many “churches” as defined by Provinces and other geographic and non-geographic administrative divisions, however, and as we affirm each week (or more often) in the recitation of the Nicene Creed, there is only “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church”, the company of all believers. 

The Church, with a capital “C”, is the Body of Christ.  What affects one part (member) of the Body has a bearing on all the other parts of the body. 

TEC may rant and rave all it wants to proclaim itself as the most important, enlightened, and preeminent part of the Body; it may declare that it does not need the rest of the Body; both efforts are in vain, because the Body will seek the health of all its members.  In TEC’s case, it is seeking to replace the wisdom of the Head of the Body of Christ with its own self-defined wisdom or declare itself independent of the Body. TEC is trying to make itself the Head; we are smarter, so you should do things the way we say.

Nevertheless, the Scriptures are still true, regardless of TEC’s attempts to rationalize, ignore,or trump God’s Holy Word.  A lie, be it repeated ever so often, is still just a lie.

The very fact that TEC brays its supposed independence of the judgement of or correction by the rest of the Body of Christ is prima facie evidence of its departure from the catholic understanding of being “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.” 

1Cor12:12-27
12For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. 13For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.
14For the body does not consist of one member but of many. 15If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. 16And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. 17If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? 18But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. 19If all were a single member, where would the body be? 20As it is, there are many parts, yet one body.
21The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” 22On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, 24which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, 25that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. 26If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.
27Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. [English Standard Version]

If there was any doubt in my mind that TEC and its “Anderson like” members want to do anything but obfuscate the issues this correspondence proves it. TEC is now led by “Progressive” members who can, in their mind, make any departure from the basic tenets of our religion ok by declaring that the “polity” of the church intends to abandon whatever belief it wants. I have an undergraduate degree in Political Science, a Law degree and was very involved in statewide political races and I have never seen the word “polity” used before I read this missive from Ms. Anderson. In this context it is all but meaningless and aids in the ongoing fraud being perpetrated by the church leaders who simply want to change us all into Unitarians.

Thanks to Bonnie, for doing part of the unwelcome correctional work that she finds in her brief as leader of the TEC House of Deputies.  When highly placed panels say dubious things, somebody possibly has to say something.

I long wondered if women would be the next handy targets for Realignment ConsEvs attack, after the vigorous antigay legacy narratives were wearing too familiar and too thin.  The wearisome thing about the antigay narratives is that they are so canned, so predictable.  It all starts to go in one ear and out of the other.  Even among people who dearly still believe all of it.  And then there is the obvious new ConsEvs disconnect, that none of those legacy views which say such awful things about queer folks are supposed to be a basis for interfering with a queer neighbor at work, in their homes, at a restaurant or hotel or copy shop, and so forth.  I am still not quite sure that ConsEvs really mean it when they preach their new hands off the queers outside of the churches stuff.  I guess time will tell.  So far in USA, it seems like they pass new laws against something in queer life, about every ConsEvs chance they get, so it is hard to take their pleading that they are not antigay as seriously as they urge.

Are we tired yet of counting and judging and condemning queer orgasms for the entirely nasty and wet business they undoubtedly are?  Well there is always women, contaminated (inferior?) because of hormones or brain cells or lack of a penis or whatever.  Shift gears.  Bishop Iker to the podium, please.  He is quite knowledgeable about both condemnations.  Doesn’t like to sit in the same rooms with either queer folks (bishops? naaah) or with ordained women (oooo, eeeek, naaah).

Funny that the outside, unsaved, sinful, and vile pagan world is supposed to scrupulously adhere to high ethical standards for equality when it comes to queer folks or women or open-ended scholarship; but the church alone gets to go its own very special and very godly way, because ConsEvs protocols always say that is absolutely just how things are.

God does things one way inside the church, because those abominable queers or ordained women are revealed to be just yucky and certainly of no godly value (except when they are silent? invisible?); and yet outside, God asks us to scrupulously refrain from punching the queers out who live down the street, while we let a woman become Speaker of the national House of Representatives.

Does this make sense?  Yeah, I know: Special ConsEvs sense that nobody else can really understand because they lack the proper biblical glasses which alone make it all make sense.

If the panel of reference narratives were a Fortune 600 company report back to us, few readers would fail to understand that it is all about maintaining what used to be called the corporate glass ceiling when it comes to women high level executives and such.

Alas, dear sisters, just keep on following your call to leadership and ministry, for what else does one do when one is called?

Just a brief reminder that feeding trolls is, in general, not a good idea, since it tends to encourage them and clutters up otherwise interesting threads.

Bonnie claims that the PoR does’nt understand TEC’s polity, but ironically, it was Bishop Iker who corrected the misunderstandings.  Look at Bishop Iker’s interview with TLC,
http://www.livingchurch.org/publishertlc/viewarticle.asp?ID=2857
Bishop Iker corrects their understanding of the polity precisely so TEC can’t properly claim that the PoR does’nt understand what’s going on.
Also, ironically, look at Bonnie’s description of the history of WO over 30 years…it’s very close to the PoR’s report (excluding her skewed commentary on how celebrated WO is)
The fact is that the PoR does understand the way that this has all happened and they disagree with it.  WO is an innovation that can’t be forced on anyone.  Look around the Anglican Communion, and you’ll find that every other province but ours agrees with the PoR.  But we all known what unenlightened bigots they all are, including the English.

I was wondering if the militant side of the argument would show up. So far this blog has always kept a civil and very well informed tone. The church in 1998 made it clear that sexual orientation was not an issue in its clergy. In fact TEC has for the 56 years I have been involved never openly criticised anyones personal life as long as they sought redemption. EGR has decided to take that foregiveness so easily given and make us accept his lifestyle while he refuses to seek foregiveness for his sins of adultery. Neither has TEC changed its opinion about ordination of females. drdanfee seems to be looking for a problem where none exists.

Bonnie writes such rubbish. I was HERE in 1976. EVERYBODY said that it was a permissive canon! This was universally understood. It was only later that some persons of ahem…“totalitarian” (for which you may read any kind of term you want) frame of mind unilaterally decided that it was not permissive. Anyway, since it is not proveable by Scripture, no one has to pay any mind to the canon.

After all of the discussion about “polity” I decided that I probably did not fully understand what the word means, so I looked it up.

Here is the Wikipedia difinition;“Polity (Greek: Πολιτεία or Πολίτευμα transliterated as Politeía or Políteuma) was originally a term used in Ancient Greece to refer to the many Greek city states that had an assembly of citizens as part of the political process. This did not include women, slaves, serfs, or metics. Thus, voting citizens usually included only a minority of the adult males.”

Hmmmm…maybe those Greeks were onto something!

(Just kidding, Sarah!)

dedanfee writes ” Yeah, I know: Special ConsEvs sense that nobody else can really understand because they lack the proper biblical glasses which alone make it all make sense.”
Your argument might make sense if the “special consevs” were a small group.  But we’re talking about biblical and sacramental understandings that are held by 95% of the world’s Christians.  Sorry, but I think the group that insists on its own interpretation is that rather small number of Christians who cannot submit themselves to the Revelation of God found in the Scriptures and in the Church throughout the Ages.

Having this Panel of Reference judge our General Convention is like asking Jack Spong to judge Stand Firm in Faith.

These aren’t equivalent.  From what I’ve read, the PoR reviewed established Anglican practice (Tradition), considered the theological premises for and against WO, and then offered a recommendation.  Bishop Spong, on the other hand, has systematically denied Tradition and Scripture.  Any recommendation Bishop Spong could make on this issue would carry no weight of authority, since it would not root itself in Christ’s divine authority as revealed in Scripture or Tradition.
Not to mention that Bishop Spong would not represent the larger body of the Anglican Communion.

This kind of garbage is one of the main reasons that the continuing Church movement has arisen in the United States. Most of our leaders saw through the liberal clap-trap years ago and knew it would only be a matter of time before their non-Anglican, non-catholic WO would be forced down everyone’s throat. And they will do the same thing with same-sex blessings. It worked with WO and it will work with the gay agenda. It is time for all orthodox Anglicans to get out of ECUSA. There is no place for you. They, from Mrs. Schori on down don’t want traditional Anglicans anywhere around them. The ship is sinking get out before you drown with it. They have not only tossed 2,000 years of Christian tradition out the window they have also tossed 500 years of Anglican tradition out along with it. Read almost any Anglican theologian, as well as the Preface to the Ordinal and one will see the the claim of ANglicanism is that we have no orders of our own but the ORders of the undivided Church Catholic. So ECUSA had no right to ordain women in the first place at least without consulatation with the rest of the AC and indeed with Rome and Constantinople as well. The 3-fold Apostolic Ministry belongs to all of the Church Catholic. So they have no right to complain about the PoR.

If it was mandatory from the start how does she explain the existence of the ECM and ESA? Seems to be they were plenty perrmissive till WO had a solid majority willing to stomp anybody who disagreed. Viola! It’s mandatory.

My apologies about blocking postings, but twice in the last few days I have hit the submit button and nothing ever happened.  Although I am posting this again because the first time didn’t “take.”

Having said that, two responses:  “Private” bloggers have every prerogative to block what gets posted to their sites.  Those sites are a far cry from more public sites such as this which, presumably, might want to solict all sorts of view points.  And the “liberal” as one calls it sites I have visited don’t block anything that isn’t obscene, rascist or the equivalent. 

I should not be, but I am amazed at the number of folks who speak badly of lesbians and gays of faith and conviction but who know no one at that level.  I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior and have had since I was about 10 years old.  I have indeed been “born again” or the more accurate translation “born from above.”  Yet that means nothing to so many folks, apparently many on this list.  However, no one on this list has been given authority to judge another person’s relationship with God.  We don’t get to decide if someone else’s personal relationship with Jesus Christ is valid or not.  We don’t seem to get that message and yet we are appalled if someone who we don’t view as “worthy” as ourselves might dare question our faith. 

I have known Gene Robinson for nearly 20 years.  He is a man of deep spiritual faith, firmly grounded in the working of God through the Holy Spirit in his life.  I’ve witnessed that.  He is in a faithful and monogamous relationship that, contrary to the lies that continue to be told, did not begin until quite a while after his divorce from his former wife.  (Now I am not dumb enough to believe that the boys who are so critical of Gene’s sexuality were sexual virgins when they got married.  I wasn’t born yesterday.  Whatever their particular state at the time of marriage and or after just doesn’t seem to matter - it’s just Gene whose sexuality is so very sinful.  That’s called hypocricy my sisters and brothers.  And despite the number of guys who have sworn to be that they have repented of their ways and can now pass judgment on others, I’m not buying it.  I still have ears that work.  I hear the conversations.  Bottom line: What each of us does is between us and God in this area.  If Gene has worked his issues out with God, the rest of us might take a lesson there.  We can’t and don’t get to repent each others’ sins.  Besides, aren’t our own sins enough to keep us busy?

I have no idea who most of the people are on this list.  Part of that is the propensity for people to not use real names for whatever reason that might be.  But I do know that I would and will share a table with you any time, regardless of whether we agree or disagree about anything.  That is particularly true of the Lord’s Table.  I will always make room at that table for any who wish to sit there.  It’s not my table, it is God’s.  Unfortunately, experience has taught me over the years not to expect any where near the same level of hospitality. 

The vitriol and nastiness of so much of what I read here is just plain rude….and certainly not Christ-like.  I don’t know about you but my mama would have backhanded me for some of the tone I read on this list.  Jesus made it clear that we were to love one another as He loved us.  Are we even remotely decent models of that behaviour?  I’m thinking not so much.

Bruce Garner, Atlanta

Posted again because the first one didn’t “take.”

“[Liberals], from Mrs. Schori on down don’t want traditional Anglicans anywhere around them.”

Technically, Liberals just don’t want conservatives in positions of power and influence.  Conservatives can stay around so long as they keep silent and give money.  After all, somebody has to pay the bills and breed.

carl

Now I am not dumb enough to believe that the boys who are so critical of Gene’s sexuality were sexual virgins when they got married

Sir: your point about hypocrisy and lack of Christian morality among heterosexuals is well taken; (P)ECUSA’s abrupt abandonment of Biblical teaching on divorce and remarriage is, if not the top, then at least a major downgrade on a slippery slope that leads to the New Hampshipre consecration (but certainly won’t stop there).
But, your finger wagging about the tenor of SF comments is not helped by use of the invective “boy”.  Having spent most of my life in L.A., and most of that time right on the Silverlake/Hollywood border, I can tell you that StandFirm has nothing on the gay community when it comes to campy trivilization of others, demeaning sarcasm, and histrionics.  And despite the spirituality expressed by some in the LGBT community, that community has been used as a wedge group by people more cynically hostile to the Christian faith.  I used to believe that LGBT issues were adiaphora, and that they might well be cultural stuff subject to church reinterpretation.  But then I attended an essentially LGBT run seminary and spent almost two decades of ministry in a reappraiser diocese.  I heard too many “humorous” bath house versions of great Christian hymns, too many disparaging dinner table comments about “breeders”, too many assertions that every detail of liturgy reflected a sexual fetish, and, really the most troubling, too many snitty put downs of church doctrines in areas way beyond the privacy of any bedroom.

Bruce ...

All that is well and good and possibly debatable, but what is your opinion on Bonnie Anderson’s letter?
For me, just because the ECUSA polity says so doesn’t make the theology of WO sound.  I think the POR says that too, or at least that questioning WO is a theologically valid position worth recognition.  Ms. Anderson never addresses that point.
D Hamilton
SW FL

Bruce is a prisoner of his own propaganda:

I should not be, but I am amazed at the number of folks who speak badly of lesbians and gays of faith and conviction but who know no one at that level.

Oddly enough, though I’ve lived both in rural areas and cities, I’ve known very few folks who either speak badly of gays qua gays or who know none who are involved in church work.

... no one on this list has been given authority to judge another person’s relationship with God.  We don’t get to decide if someone else’s personal relationship with Jesus Christ is valid or not.

Quite right; but very few here (or elsewhere in cyberspace) are doing so.  What we do get to decide, however, and what in fact we are commanded to decide, is whether the teaching of a church worker (lay or clergy) is in accordance with the accepted doctrine of the Church universal, the “faith once received”.  And that is precisely what we are doing.

This point—precisely this point—has been made over and over to revisionist activists, but there seems to be some sort of perceptual block that prevents them from hearing anything other than “you don’t like me!  You reject me!” when the theological problem is pointed out. 

I attended an Integrity meeting some years ago at which it was decided to introduce some of the Integrity members at parish meetings around the diocese to allow congregants to actually get to know them, thus presumably conquering their homophobia.  But of course this utterly misses the point.  If these congregants objected to meeting sinners, they would presumably have to attend church on some other planet.  The real problem is the redefinition of sin, not committing one.

Bruce Garner,

Jesus made it clear that we were to love one another as He loved us.

without exceptions or qualifications you’ve said. I find this interesting, maybe we should have it in context:

1"I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. 2Every branch of mine that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. 3Already you are clean because of the word that I have spoken to you. 4Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. 5I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. 6If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. 7If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 8By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples. 9As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love. 10If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love. 11These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full.
 

12"This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. 13Greater love has no one than this, that someone lays down his life for his friends. 14You are my friends if you do what I command you. 15No longer do I call you servants,[a] for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you. 16You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. 17These things I command you, so that you will love one another.

It’s pretty clear Jesus doesn’t have 1 commandement. “if you keep my commandments” and “These things I command”, both plural.
What are the other commands and their purpose? To bear much fruit and that it should abide, stay. Would you say TEC has born much fruit over the last 30 years? Fruit that abides? Or is it more likely that TEC is no longer abides in the vine? Does TEC even see itself as part of the vine or is the “Episcopal Church polity” all important?

and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit.

In the interest of saving space - I’ve posted my reaction to Bonnie’s letter over at my blog: http://apostolicity.blogspot.com.

Why isn’t Griswold taking the heat for his communication with the Panel? He, David Beers, and Claude Payne all had input into this report - and yet, Bonnie doesn’t seem to notice. Hmmmm!?!

Bruce Garner,

Everyone I know who has talked to Gene Robinson has said that he is a really nice guy. I do believe his probably very personable and truly believes he is following the will of God for His life. The problem I have is that it’s complete subjective. It is written that man does what is right in his eye but the path leads to death.

Your post has this very glaring contradiction in it:

“He is in a faithful and monogamous relationship that, contrary to the lies that continue to be told, did not begin until quite a while after his divorce from his former wife.”

Monogamous & faithful relationship contrast with divorce.

Matthew 19:9 or Malaci 2:16 or 1 Corinthians 7:10-11

I’ve been in a caring loving relationship, in fact we pledge to never leave one another, however she did. It was shortly after that I discovered that even though I was attending worship and she would sometimes attend that this was not a godly relationship. I cared for her deeply, after all Scripture does not say anything about cohabitation. Well, objectively, Scripture did imform me that I could plead guilty of either forincation or this was a marriage thus involving myself with an unbeliever. I had an outside objective opinion.

I once thought if you had a relationship with God and were not hurting things than everything was okay too. In fact this sin thing was a little too pushed, sin is about hurting people, right? I’m too much of geek to do that, I may had interesting friends, I was on the sidelines mostly, so yes, there was some stuff that was clearly wrong, but I was pretty okay. Oh yeah, I was a Christian, maybe dubbled in some areas I shouldn’t ... maybe a Christian witch? Then I gave that stuff up, my political views did swing to the opposite end, I was a good guy. I had a dark spot I didn’t want to talk about, but people did remark how I really put my life together.

Thank God that this woman didn’t keep her promises for I came to the end of myself. I needed Jesus. Odd thing happened, I learned that Jesus is a living person who has opinions, in fact He has shared many of those opinions with us in Scripture. He happen to have a whole lot to say about sin, the most surprising thing about God’s law, they’re not given as a way to earn my going to Heaven, yes they are a mirror and school teacher as Paul & James give, but also as a gift of love. Granted I came from the permissive side, so find when I talk to someone who grew up in an authoritarian environment, they reel back and lecture me about grace. I fully agree with them but I’ve been allowed to do what I wanted, there’s a lot of love in telling someone not to tough that hot stove.

The problem with GLBT community is that they want to call what is unheathy for them as blessed. I’m single so I’m in the exact same calling as they are in terms of my body. It is for my own profit to obey God’s decrees.

Bruce, you’ve now discovered why SF doesn’t edit comments but “use much more ERRRRRR—decisive methods.” I’m sure there are many posts that have beat me to responding to you, that said, welcome. We may disagree with you, we’ll certainly engage, hopeful in line with Matt 5:43-45 reminder Greg has given us, still welcome to “circus” that is SF.

Bruce,

That is really bad theology. We are, as you know, sinners. The orthodox argument as you must know is not that we are “good” and VGR is “bad” and therefore he should not be a bishop.

The argument is that all sinners, ourselves included, must submit to the law of God and as Paul says in Romans 7 admit that it is true and good even though we ourselves do not do what we want to do and do what we do not want to do. In other words we commit ourselves to obedience and to living as a slave of righteousness rather than a slave of sin AND, in recognition of our sinful nature, we commit ourselves to repentance when we fall.

We seek to conform our lives, by grace, to the law of God.

We must not and cannot conform or deform the law of God to fit our lives or our desires, no matter how deeply felt.

This is the crux of the argument and it makes no difference whatsoever that we have sinned. Of course we have. But thanks be to God through Jesus Christ, we have the opportunity to repent and receive forgiveness.

But by calling “good” behavior God has defined as sin, VGR and the rest of TEC have blocked the door to repentance and led many who struggle with homosexual sin away from Christ and into the darkness.

This is, ultimately, the cruelty heresy. It draws people away from the Truth of Christ.

I pray that VGR himself will repent and that those who follow him will have the opportunity to do so as well.

AGain, it is taking two attempts to get in a posting!

Regarding womens’ ordination (since someone asked):  It was at first a curiousity.  But such was also the case when my own mother was to be the first woman in our parish to be what was then called a chalice bearer.  There were threats to “boycott” the rail if a woman carried the chalice.  The boycott never happened, in large part because mother was a pillar of that parish (still is at 81) and everyone there knew her.

Ordained women did seem odd at first until I really began to think about God, particularly in terms of the creation stories in Genesis.  It’s pretty clear that God created both man and woman in God’s image.  So if woman is as created in God’s image as man, there must also be some aspect of God that reflects femaleness.  I have known some of the women who were ordained soon after the canons were changed.  With very few exceptions, each has reflected the countenance of Christ as well (and sometimes better) than their male counterparts.  When I see both men and women serving at the altar, I now see the fullness of God’s presence there, not just the maleness of God.  Ordained women have also taught me to value the self that God created in me.  Perhaps it was through their struggle for the ability to accept a vocational calling, or who knows what, but that has happened.  Women have been leaders in the church from the beginning despite attempts to write them out of the story.  Many were strong and talented and powerful women.  I suspect that it is the strength and power that is so threatening to certain men, particularly in a member of the clergy.  I see that as an asset rather than a liability.  We seem to have no trouble with our adoration of Jesus very mother, but we can’t fathom a woman doing more than just bearing the child.  There’s a flaw in that thinking that I can only attribute to some level of male arrogance. 

Yes I used the term “boy” and did so deliberately.  When men behave like elementary age school boys with their sandbox pissing contests, they are properly referred to as boys because they are not acting like mature men. 

Every community has its warts.  The lesbian and gay community is no exception.  And any community that has - for whatever reason and by whomever - been oppressed learns to cope through a variety of mechanisms.  Some find them flippant and/or irreverent.  On the other hand, laughter is often the only way some can avoid the tears. 

There is little point in me adding more to this because someone will want to dissect every jot and tittle of it, much as they do with Scripture.  Many things only make sense in the broader context, something about which we may not be privy.  Those on this list who have ever been elected to a parish vestry or elected to a diocesan council or convention to represent a parish and/or elected as a deputy to general convention probably have a more broad view of all of this because of that experience.  It’s too bad that all of us cannot experience that.  For me it has always been a very spiritual and spirit filled experience fully grounded in prayer and study in building relationships toward the ultimate restoration of creation to its proper order with the Creator. 

So those who wish to dissect, have at it!

Bruce Garner, Atlanta

I am unqualified to decide for EGR whether his lifestyle is sinfull or not. I can clearly say that his open “in your face” lifestyle disqualifies him to be a bishop in the Anglican chuch I worship in. Everything I read indicates that he is a loving dedicated Christian. But he needs to practice his Christianity in another denomination.

Bruce—I’ve lost a couple of posts here myself, so it has little to do with orthodox/revisionist; the gremlins are apparently theological agnostics.  Type ctrl-A ctrl-C before submitting; that will mark your post and copy it to the clipboard in case you lose it (assuming you’re using a Windoze machine).

But you’ve answered NONE of the points that anyone raised here about your post.  This is not dissection; it is attempting to discuss matters you believed were important enough to write about.  I’m surprised at you.

And why, exactly, would serving on a vestry change one’s theology?  It certainly didn’t change mine.  And even if it did, what effect would that have on the actual merits—logical, theological, theraputic, whatever—of the new (or old) theological position?  Isn’t this just an effort to get sniffy and pull rank on the (presumed) peasants?  Aren’t you simply confirming the universal impression that people on your side of the controversy have absolutely no rational backing for any of their positions, so they resort to whining, ad hominem, and changing the subject?

For shame.

AGain, it is taking two attempts to get in a posting!

Bruce,

Any chance you’re mistaking the ‘preview’ button for the ‘submit’ button? Just a thought.

Also, can you tell me exactly what happens when you click the button to submit a comment? What appears immediately after you do that? Any error messages, or anything else out of the ordinary?

Hank,

You are qualified to judge, that’s the whole gist of my post. We do have an outside objective standard we can measure ourselves and others.

In-your-face-ness does not disqualify unless your saying “not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome” than you would be correct. We are actually commanded to judge when it comes to qualities for leadership and given a check list in 1 Tim 3.

I do believe I understand your not wanting to pass judgement on +VGR (meaning final judgement). We move into error when we take our commands to judge others outside the area the Lord gave us. Leadership, we were given a objective standard.

Bruce Garner:

Now I am not dumb enough to believe that the boys who are so critical of Gene’s sexuality were sexual virgins when they got married.  I wasn’t born yesterday.  Whatever their particular state at the time of marriage and or after just doesn’t seem to matter - it’s just Gene whose sexuality is so very sinful.  That’s called hypocricy my sisters and brothers.

Bruce, that’s actually not hypocricy.  Hypocricy is “do as I say, not as I do.”  What you’re describing is “Do as I say, not as I’ve DONE.”  Who better to warn others of the danger of their errors than the ones who have already made them?

There is no moral equivalence between the cases you’ve described (whether you’re “buying it” or not).  Those who have made the mistake of sexual activity outside marriage have confessed their sins and been forgiven; Gene Robinson has not… not so much because he has acknowledged a sinful behavior he simply has yet to confess, but in that he refuses to acknowledge that the behavior is sinful at all to begin with (over and against the unanimous and ubiquitous witness of scripture and sacred history).  How nice it must be to redefine an enjoyable behavior outside the realm of “sin,” just so one doesn’t have to confess it as such!

Furthermore, with regard to this:

Bottom line: What each of us does is between us and God in this area.

What about 1 Corinthians 5:9-13?  Paul calls us specifically to judge those INSIDE the Church (I assume you would include Gene Robinson in this category?), rather than bothering with those outside it.

I hope and pray that StandFirm never stops reappraiser comments, and I’ve never seen any evidence of it.  After all, half the fun here is watching the cool careful relentless refutation of blatant nonsense that always follows.  It’s really quite refreshing.  And hopefully an exercise in logical discipline for those reappraisers who don’t slink away in embarrassment.

But any comment blocking would have to get by the resident elf monitor, who is known to deliver her packages in the middle of the night with a gentle splash that leaves hardly a ripple.

After reading Ms.Anderson’s letter as well as Mr. Garner and Father Woodward’s comments,I now know why 1 John 1 & 2 were so applicable today,especially the latter half of 1:8 in the Phillips’ NT’s words:‘live in a world of illusion and truth becomes a stranger to us’.

Mendacity!  That is MS Anderson’s name.  I was a deputy at the GC that voted the Permission for WO.  I voted on the losing side.  It was most clearly understood by even the pro lesbian political group that this was for permission only, indeed, that was a part of their argument during floor debate.  Nowhere was it intended to be mandated.  The kind of road apples given out by MS Anderson illustrates just how bankrupt those people are.  It is so sad.  On the first Sunday of this month I celebrated 50 years as a priest.  I would have never thought that things could become so bad.  I am sure that God can forgive those people.  I am not sure that I can.  Maranatha!

Polity, polity, process, procedure, polity.

ECUSA’s leaders increasingly seem to worship ECUSA’s polity.

We seem to have no trouble with our adoration of Jesus very mother, but we can’t fathom a woman doing more than just bearing the child.

Come on, Bruce, both of the retrograde, Neanderthal communions that do the unthinkable and permit only men to be priests – Rome and Orthodoxy – ascribe way, way, more to the Blessed Mother than simply “bearing the child.”  The Faithful ask her to intercede for them and venerate her name in a way they would never do for their priests.

There’s a lesson there, but for somebody who views this all as a justice issue akin to barring female Space Shuttle pilots, it will fall on deaf ears.

To the tune of “God Save the Queen” and “My Country ‘Tis of Thee”:

O Lord our God arise,
Eight-fifteen sanitize,
Spare us their gall;
Confound their polity,
Frustrate their knavery,
From faithless sophistry,
God save us all!

Another signal?  ENS just posted the letter.

“The polity of this church effectively says we have a schism which has been in existence for a long time between TEC and the AC. ”  (richardc)

This seems right to me, richardc.  But has ECUSA/TEC not also said, at least formerly or until recently, that it was a constituent part of the Anglican Communion? 

Do you think there is more to these contradictions than blatant incoherence?  I’ve never understood how ECUSAn polity related to theology, so ignored it, although I don’t think I could have done much about it anyway.  I just thought the “polity, polity” grandstanders were nuts until it became impossible to stay out of harms way from them.  Then being in their midst sickened me.

(Like your prayer, Irenaeus, especially if I can sing it and especially to that tune.)

The vitriol and nastiness of so much of what I read here is just plain rude….and certainly not Christ-like.  I don’t know about you but my mama would have backhanded me for some of the tone I read on this list.  Jesus made it clear that we were to love one another as He loved us.  Are we even remotely decent models of that behaviour?  I’m thinking not so much.

Bruce Garner, Atlanta

I try not to comment on the comments; but if I may, let me say this: honey is far more useful than vinegar in comment and conversation. That’s not scripture - at least I think it isn’t - it’s just plain common sense. Many refrain from posting here, myself included, because we don’t wish to be drawn into a battle of wits with vinegar with other commentors.

Regardless of Bruce Garner’s personal views on religious issues, and especially in regard to Bonnie Anderson’s letter, his comment is well taken on the appearance of Christian witness here among many of the postings by reasserters. Directly below what I am writing now appears this quote:

Before you post, please remember Matthew 5:43-45:

You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.

Love Bonnie Anderson and pray for her.

If we all do that in these situations, then we all will be ONE, reaserter and reappraiser alike, in faith and fellowship together as Jesus called us to be. Jesus calls us all to do that and be that in word and in deed.

In reading this discussion thread, I have been reminded for some reason of the Q&A period after +Duncan’s address to the Diocese of Pittsburgh after the emergency Primates’ meeting in 2003.  A self-described lesbian woman stepped up to the microphone and asked Bishop Duncan (this is a paraphrase): “If this Diocese is not going to fully include gays and lesbians in all aspects of the Diocese, what then does this diocese have to offer me?”

+Duncan’s reply (direct quote): “The redeeming love of Jesus Christ.”

Woman’s retort (direct quote): “What if I don’t want to be redeemed?”

Bishop Duncan gave the woman his best pastoral smile, I’m sure said a prayer for her silently, and moved on.  Therein lies the chasm between the sides.  It cannot be bridged.

FWIW, I have posted the Statement on Conscience that the Theology Committee of the House of Bishops released at Port St. Lucie in 1977 here. Bonnie needs to read it too. It is not a “conscience clause,” it applies to all of us, and it is not legislation that can be repealed.

Hello,
I am a first time visitor to your site and was reading the various messages about the letter from Bonnie Anderson. One of the contributors, Matt Kennedy on 1-18-07, used VGR several times in his posting. VGR was underlined and produced a ? when the curser was positioned on it. This in turn revealed the following, “Vicki Gene Robinson, Bishop of New Hampshire.” 

My question is this. What does the reference Vicki mean and was/is this done by Stand Firm as part of its www site OR did the poster of the message create it and the terminology attached to it?

Thanks very much,
Bruce Linsenmayer
Diocese of Los Angeles, CA

Bruce: “Vicki” is this cleric’s first name, given by his parents at birth. The underlining often appears here under the sorts of words one would use in an indexing system.

The underlining indicates, I believe, that a mouseover will give you an explanation of the acronym or whatever has been underlined. VGR=the initials of the bishop’s name. If you scroll up, you’ll see that words like “reappraiser” and “primate” are also underscored and have mouseover explanations to help first timers on the site figure out what is being referred to.

Actually oscewicee it was in your post!

Pretty cool eh Bruce?
Hey Greg, how about posting info on how to do that?
Or is it a trade secret? 

I think I have finally worked it out - we are dealing with a cult.

For years I have taught that some of the hallmarks of a cult are: -
First they have their own scriptures supplementary to and rivaling the Bible, and
Second their teachings seek to re-interpret the Bible as we have received it.

Ms. Anderson is doing precisely that (as to others of her camp).  The canons and polity of which she writes are the supplementary scriptures, and about which she is very fundamentalist.  The special interpretations are the innovative teachings on sexuality.  To these latter may be the added the very curious if not mendacious reinterpretation of the historical record about womens’ ordination in the EC-USA.

One of my early mentors used to say that any addition to the Gospel is a subtraction from it. 

This letter is evidence of clear cultic behavior on the part of Ms. Anderson.  As she purports to write in an official capacity then I guess she is writing as an official representative of the EC-USA and I suspect that she will be appropriately reminded of her errors by ++Canterbury to whom she addresses herself.  The EC-USA cannot continue in a Communion that is largely defined as Anglican according to its classic formularies of then Creeds, the 1662 Ordinal, XXXIX Articles, if it continues to promote its own cultic heresies in the face of a Communion that has so clearly stated recently in the Windsor Report that the Bible is our supreme authority and source of unity. 

Cult it is.  I might even share this over at T19

Bruce Linsenmayer :
Welcome! I hope the other explained it for you, these are to help people decode our short hand.
——
Rocks:
Greg has some script that auto-inserts a “mouse over.” Yes it is possible for us also, it was played with by an “elf” and and an “elf friend’ who had too much fun with it—it’s more script than I want to write each post, then I also hate < a href= > stuff.  Saying that:

http://www.quirksmode.org/js/mouseov.html

Will give you what Greg’s server is doing each and every time we hit “Submit,”  then a computer do te tedious tasks very well and quickly. That’s the trade secret.

It is pretty obvious that we come from a variety of points of view and experiences with regard to how we look at Scripture.  My first exposure to organized religion was in the Southern Baptist Church of my childhood.  That was where I note that the preacher could literally preach an hour and a half about a verse and a half!  In the process he (there were no women clergy then…few now) took the verse completely out of both the context of the story from which it came and out of the context of the time it was written.

In the Enquirer’s Class that lead to my baptism as an Episcopalian at the age of 16 I was taught to take the Bible very seriously but not literally.  Over the years, from reading the Bible daily and from a four year course of study I have benefited greatly from that wisdom.  A reader can not get out of the book of Genesis without encountering two different creation stories as well as two different flood stories (that do not match).  The details of the two sets of narratives are not material to me.  I am not interested in the particulars of creation nearly as much as I am interested in the fact that God did indeed create!  Similarly, the particulars of the flood stories are not nearly as important as the fact that God saved a remnant of humanity from the flood waters.  Such is often the case in the Biblical narratives:  The details are not nearly as important as the event(s) might be.

Some folks are quite fond of tossing out passages from Leviticus in support of their opposition to lesbians and gays having a full role in the life of the church.  It is very obvious that there is a verse that calls a man lying with another man as with a woman an abomination.  However, abomination is not the same thing as sin.  The word abomination literally means to make to want to throw up.  And while that may well be some folks reaction, it’s hardly the point.  This action is a violation of ritual purity or ritual rules for the people of Israel.  But it is not identified as sin per se.  A few verses later, eating shrimp is placed in the same category, although there is little resemblance between the two acts except that both are violations of ritual purity rules.  It’s well worth reading ALL of Leviticus to see exactly how many interesting things we do not follow in those rules.  I haven’t noticed too many people stoning disobedient children to death in the public square and I doubt that many men refrain from sleeping in the same bed as their wives during the wife’s monthly period, but that’s in the Bible too.  It’s still all about ritual purity rules, not sin.

The narrative about Sodom/Gomorrah is more about the people of Israel adhering to the requirement to show hospitality to strangers than about same gender sexuality.  If the latter was the case, why did Lot offer to throw his daughters to the crowd outside the door.  If the issue was same-gender sex, that would certainly not have been the way to address the crowds concerns.  The sin of the people was not being hospitable to strangers…in this case the stranger just happened to be God.  Not exactly a good move on their part.  There is also a parallel story in Judges about a very similar situation.  Only this time the householder does throw the stranger out of his house to the crowd.  The next morning he finds her dead body on his doorstep.  She had literally been raped to death by the inhospitable mob. 

Even in the 1928 BCP (and presumably earlier versions as well) Episcopalians ascent to the Holy Scriptures containing all things necessary for salvation.  No details are provided, just that affirmation.  We also state that we believe the Bible to be the word of God.  Note that the term is word, NOT words of God.  There is a tremendous amount of difference in the terminology.  At some point in the distant past, God may indeed have spoken directly into the ear of a human being.  But the first time that human being shared the story, it became interpreted.  Such is true of most oral tradition sharing.  Remember the game where you sit in a circle and tell the person on your right something and it gets passed around the circle until it comes back to you?  How often is what you ultimately hear so different from what you originally said that you barely recognize it?  The Biblical narratives were passed down via the oral tradition for decades or longer before ever being written down.  And once they were written down, they immediately became subject to what we might term typographical errors.  The transposition of just two letters in a Greek or Hebrew word could create a completely different word with different consequences and meanings.  Even Jesus interpreted Scripture when he read it.  Rabbi Hillel made the statement long ago that “loving God and loving your neighbor were the Torah.  All else was commentary.”  There is great wisdom in that.

We can all pick and choose what parts of the Bible we want to follow or believe and we ALL have a tendency to do that.  But it remains dishonest.  Every story, every narrative must be kept in the context of its broader story as well as the context of when it was written if it is to be of real value. 

If you have read the portion about what I will call “rules for being a bishop” you will note that one of the requirements is that he be the husband of only one wife.  That presupposes that there were faithful members of the church community who had more than one wife.  It didn’t eject them from the community of faith, it just meant they couldn’t be a bishop. 

Scholars on both sides of the aisle agree that some of what has been attributed to Paul of Tarsus wasn’t written by him at all.  And parts of some books/letters that he did author have been added or changed and are not his.  If one looks at all of the works attributed to Paul and tries to relate them to him, there is a strong case that Paul would qualify for a diagnosis of bi-polar schizophrenia in modern terms. 

I do not look at the Bible as a “handbook” or “guidebook” for human beings.  I look at it as a resource.  The Hebrew Testament tells the story of God’s relationship with the people of Israel.  It’s a bit rocky at times, but at no time have we been told that God ended the covenant with Israel.  The Christian Testament relates the experiences of the early church and what we think we know of the life of Jesus.  The most important point for me is what I call the direct teachings of Jesus.  Matthew 25 near the end of the chapter comes to mind where we are given marching orders as to what we do for the hungry, homeless, needy, sick, imprisoned, etc.  A careful reading of the stories reveals that Jesus’ primary concern was right relationships….or righteousness.  He had little patience with those who could spout off the letter of the law but knew nothing of the spirit of the law.  The story of the Good Samaritan made very clear who our neighbor was supposed to be.  The learned teachers and practioners of the Torah missed the point.  The lowlife, outcast Samaritan proved to be the “better Jew” in incident.

We need also keep in mind that what we now call the Bible was the result of a vote during an early council of the church.  Hopefully there was lots of praying involved, but there was ultimately a vote to decide what would be included in the Canon of Scripture and what would be excluded.  Some good stuff got left out and some not so good stuff got included, but that’s what we have.  Ongoing research with ancient documents continues to give us clues as to more accurate translations of ancient languages.  We may find ourselves saying “oops” in the future over some of what we have held dear.

Every single one of us is a sinner….make no mistake about that.  But my sin is not my sexual orientation any more than another person’s heterosexual orientation is her/his sin.  The sin is that which becomes a barrier to right relationship between me and God and/or between me and other children of God.  That is the essence of sin.  Being lesbian or gay doesn’t make one any more or less inclined to sin in that way than being heterosexual does.  It is how we treat each other and how we relate to the One who created us that begets sin.  I’ve known some church-blessed heterosexual marriages that were bastions of sin because of the way the parties treated each other.  Marriage vows didn’t stop the sin from taking place, nor did those vows condone it.  The people involved committed the sin by the way they treated each other and by the way they ultimately related to God.

Someone quoted part of the Gospel passages about vines and fruit.  I think therein lies the real litmus test.  Does the relationship or the action bear good fruit or bad fruit?  I know married heterosexual couples whose relationship bears foul and rotten fruit.  And I know others that bear beautiful flavorful fruit that reflects their love of each other cradled in and nestled in God’s love.  Similarly, I also know same-gender couples whose relationship bears equally beautiful fruit.  And of course I know same-gender couples whose relationship bears the same foul and rotten fruit as some of their heterosexual counterparts.  It’s not the orientation, it is the relationship.

I don’t expect to change anyone’s thinking on this particular list.  I have shared this to give you an idea of my own spiritual journey and what has shaped who I am as a follower of Jesus Christ.  I have indeed been redeemed.  I have been saved.  It didn’t involve changing or curing or converting my sexual orientation.  It did involve finally realizing that God’s grace is abundant and sufficient for me at all times and in all places and that God’s love is strong.  The fire of the Holy Spirit burns hot in my breast and for that I am ever so grateful to the God who created, redeemed and sustains me.  I wish you the same joy!

Christ’s peace to all.

Bruce Garner, Atlanta

I knew we’d get to the shellfish argument sooner or later…

Second try!

It’s not an argument, just a statement of one of the multiple issues mentioned in Leviticus.  Besides, I didn’t mention pork so you can still chow down on barbeque’d ribs and pork chops!

The point remains that it must all be kept in context or it loses its real meaning.

Bruce

Bruce, the problem with the shellfish argument is that it has been thoroughly debunked and it is still being used.

Lev. 18:22 is not part of the purity code. Countryman is simply wrong about this. This is made plain not only by the immediate context of Lev 18, but also by the ratification of the restriction in the NT.

Here’s from an article I wrote on the subject…

Now let’s turn briefly to the Old Testament. I have saved this part of my discussion until now because the material we find in Romans and 1st Corinthians establishes that Paul not only carried forward the OT prohibition against homosexual behavior, but added much to it, providing the reason behind its prohibition, namely that it is perversion of the created order stemming from the Fall. It is helpful to have this NT context before turning to the OT because the OT passages which condemn homosexuality as an “abomination” or “detestable” (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13) have been mischaracterized as:

• Part of the temple/tabernacle purity code, which was abolished in the NT when through his sacrifice Jesus became the new Temple, and

• Part of a xenophobic attempt to retain Hebrew identity over and against surrounding peoples. Since that particular social need is no longer extant, the law created to meet it is no longer necessary . . . so goes the argument.

Inspired by the Holy Spirit, Paul as we have already seen, and Jesus and the NT Church as we will see, understood the prohibitions found in Leviticus 18, including Leviticus 18:22, to be primarily moral in nature. Though there were most definitely ritual ramifications to transgressing the laws that are spelled out in Leviticus 20:13 (namely that one became unclean), the laws in themselves were understood to be primarily moral in nature. Thus, the either/or character of the most recent revisionist polemic must be corrected by a both/and point of view.

There are three categories of Levitical law: purity/ritual, theocratic and moral. Only the last category—moral—was intended to stand eternally.

The Purity/Ritual Levitical Laws
The purity/ritual laws have to do with tabernacle and temple. They were introduced by God to reinforce the concepts of holiness and bodily purity. The rules and regulations associated with the temple no longer apply to Christians for the very good reason that Jesus Christ, in his body and through his blood, has fulfilled and replaced the temple, as the writer of Hebrews makes clear in chapters 9-10 and as Peter’s vision makes clear in Acts 10:9-23. Christ is our purity and our sacrifice.

The Theocratic Levitical Laws
The theocratic laws had to do with governing the people of Israel during the time of the judges and kings. They were intended to reinforce the concept of Israel being set apart as a holy nation and people. Because of rebellion and idolatry, those kingdoms were taken away. The new Kingdom of God introduced in and through Jesus Christ has superceded the old theocratic covenant, and therefore, the laws regarding governance in the Promised Land no longer apply.

Jesus did not come to change these laws, but rather, as he put it, to fulfill them. As the representative Israelite, he fulfilled the mission in and through the law that Israel as a nation failed to fulfill. In obedience even unto death, he became the light to the nations and the glory of God’s people Israel . With Jesus’ death and resurrection, the people of God have been given an eternal purity in his blood and have been ushered into a new sort of theocracy, the Kingdom of God, that includes all who call Jesus Lord. The old has passed away, God is making all things new.

Notice, however, that this fulfillment, this new creation, was initiated and begun by the sovereign Lord and verified and authenticated not apart from the law and the prophets, but through and according to them. This new covenant in blood was not voted on or dictated by the Sanhedrin or by popular demand, but it was handed down and authenticated by God himself at the resurrection and ascension. Moreover, the NT writers themselves, inspired by the Holy Spirit, attest to all of these things.

The Moral Levitical Laws are Eternal
Now we come to the third category, the moral law. These have not been superceded or changed. In this category you will find the Ten Commandments, the laws regarding sexual morality, and the laws regarding the poor and the foreigners. These laws are consciously alluded to and purposely mentioned by Jesus and the NT writers as absolutely binding in the new Kingdom.

The present debate has centered upon whether or not the sexual regulations listed in Leviticus 18 are to be categorized as purity/ritual laws or moral laws. It is clear, however, from the fact that the prohibitions against all forms of sexual behavior outside of monogamous heterosexual marriage are consistently and clearly condemned in the NT, including implicitly and explicitly homosexual conduct, that Jesus and the apostles considered these laws to be moral laws established at creation and in force until the end. That the NT writers considered them to be moral in nature should be clear from our discussion of Romans 1 and 1st Corinthians 6:9 above. That Jesus understood these laws to be moral rather than purity/ritual is clear from his discourse in Mark 7:9-23 (discussed below). That the early church held and enforced the same understanding is clear from the instructions to Gentile believers found in Acts 15:20.

Jesus does not address homosexual behavior as distinct from other illicit sexual behaviors, but he condemns it all the same by his negative application of the word “pornia” in Mark 7:21-22 and Matthew 15:19. The Greek word “pornia” in the context of first century Judaism referred specifically to the Levitical laws found in Leviticus 18 (homosexuality is specifically mentioned in 18:22).

The rabbis of the first century often used shorthand phrases to refer to the law, as we saw with the phrase “the law and the prophets” which refers to the Tanahk. “Pornia” was another shorthand word that, again, was used to refer to all the acts and behaviors listed in Leviticus 18 from incest to bestiality, from adultery to homosexuality. Therefore, when Jesus says, “But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man unclean. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander . . . ”(Matt 15:18-19), he indicates very clearly that all the acts considered sexually immoral in the Levitical law code, from heterosexual promiscuity to homosexual partnerships, are to be considered immoral by his disciples as well. They are, in other words, moral in nature and thus eternal.

The very same word, “pornia,” is used in Acts 15:20 by the church council in Jerusalem. They command Gentile believers to abstain from “pornia,” again, a direct reference to and a clear endorsement of the Levitical sexual code.

In sum, throughout scripture you will find not one positive or even neutral word relating to homosexual activity. When referenced, the homosexual drive and the homosexual act are always and everywhere referenced as sins consistent with and arising out of the fallen-ness of humanity. To paraphrase Dr. Gagnon once again, homosexual behavior is a behavior that is proscribed by both testaments implicitly and explicitly, pervasively, severely, absolutely and without shadow or shade.

Others have reached different conclusions.  That has always been part of the beauty of traditional Anglicanism:  We can read Scripture and reach different conclusions about it and still gather around God’s table together. 

As far as Paul in Romans is concerned, I happen to agree with his comments about the folks in the church in Rome apparently giving up natural for the unnatural.  If you are heterosexual and give up heterosexual activity for homosexual activity you are doing what is unnatural for you.  In my case it is not unnatural for me, so I haven’t given up the natural for the unnatural.  Remember also that Paul was writing to a specific congregation about issues specific to them.  That is proper context for some of the letters.

You can hammer away all you want my friend that I am flawed or unnatural, but that’s not the way it is.  My wiring is different from yours, plainly and simply.  I have a very high intelligence level and am quite sane by virtue of both psychiatric and psycological testing.  But my erotic attraction is totally toward those of my own gender.  I have no frame of reference, no concept for opposite gender attraction.  You probably can’t relate to that because you have no frame of reference for same gender attraction.  So keep that in mind when you find yourself on the verge of condemning someone.  By the way, at what age did you first realize you were sexually attracted to women??

Bruce Garner

second attempt to post!

Trying again…Bruce Garner,

Personal experience trumps Scripture then?  Or does Scripture have to fit your experience to be heard?

Bruce,

The sort of “unnatural relations” described by St. Paul in the Epistle to the Romans are not personally unnatural, they are unnatural due to their opposition to nature.  I might say that something is “in my nature,” you know - to be cantankerous or intense - that is what is “in my nature,” personally.  But, Paul is talking about homosexual relations as being unnatural because of their incompatibility with the natural law, understood by reason, and confirmed in the Scriptures.

This is not to say that personal attractions may be different.  They are not out of the question at all, nor are the attractions themselves condemned by Scripture.  It is rather the disordered sexual act that is condemned.  I have many tendencies toward sin, but the tendencies or attractions toward sin do not validate the acts as righteous.  This is the fallacy of your argument.

I meant “may not be different.”

Since you have thrown the “shellfish” laws in here…don’t be so quick to discount what God was doing so long ago!    Look at all the modern dietary research which now cautions against eating shellfish, fish without scales and pork….because of the toxins they carry and are not able to expel….because of the way they were designed!

My health improved greatly when I gave them up….and I was a big fan, having lived in the Bar-B-Que capital of the nation…North Carolina!!! 

Bruce Garner - so, what you would have the church say to the young college guy who is hardwired to be very attracted to the virtual cornucopia of hot women around him on campus - and who acts accordingly?  There’s no question that’s a natural, normal desire, and I’m sure our hypothetical student enjoys every minute of it.

Do you tell him, “if it feels good, do it, baby?”

If you don’t, why not?  What basis do you have for counseling him otherwise?

Keep in mind that any rationale based on Scripture or Tradition is ruled out, since you’ve adopted a pick-and-choose hermeneutic.

Bruce,

Someone quoted part of the Gospel passages about vines and fruit.  I think therein lies the real litmus test.  Does the relationship or the action bear good fruit or bad fruit?  I know married heterosexual couples whose relationship bears foul and rotten fruit.  And I know others that bear beautiful flavorful fruit that reflects their love of each other cradled in and nestled in God’s love.  Similarly, I also know same-gender couples whose relationship bears equally beautiful fruit.  And of course I know same-gender couples whose relationship bears the same foul and rotten fruit as some of their heterosexual counterparts.  It’s not the orientation, it is the relationship.

I think you are missing the point of John:15.
“You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide”
It is clear from the conext of the Last Supper and what Jesus says that this is clearly intended to Christ’s Apostles as Shepherds.
The “fruit” are more disciples. This text maybe more broadly interpreted to include personal relationships but you can’t deny it’s obvious and primary intent. TEC is a shell of what it once was, It now is on the brink of complete fracture. There has been 40 years of your type of “interpretations”. Has it “born fruit”? Does it “abide” with Christ? Or is it about to be “pruned”?

““Lord, how is it that you will manifest yourself to us, and not to the world?” 23Jesus answered him, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. 24Whoever does not love me does not keep my words. And the word that you hear is not mine but the Father’s who sent me.”
It maybe the WORD of the Bible but I think we are supposed to pay attention to the WORDS too.

The rest you state, most particularly the vote for the bible, it’s “editing” and what was “left out” I would point you to any good DaVinci Code debunking site. It’s not even worthy of serious historical or theological debate. The Council of Nicea was early alright but it wasn’t just some GC.

Once again, ancient Roman proclivities are mentioned.  The old “people were doing something different back then” argument, that I recall Griswold and a few others made over the years.  I thought they had stopped pushing that because it was readily disprovable.  Really, does no one study history these days?  There is plenty out there about what the 1st century Romans thought and did relevant to these arguments.  Much of it unfit for a public website, which is why I am not going to post it, and I am not squeamish.  (The scholars left out the pornographic bits from the textbooks for the high schoolers.)  Ancient Roman culture in this area was, if anything, far worse in every respect than our current times.  I think that is why Paul protested their morality so vociferously, and why the elites put him to death to shut him up.

Bruce Garner:

You have at least one single male and female on the blog and one admitted divorces person (I forgot the gender). Thus Phil is not asking a hypothetical, that you could easily ignore. As the signal male, yes, I’d love for you to try and answer those questions.

Bruce,
First: the whole notion of “natural” as you use it with regard to sexuality is unnatural.  The word “homosexual” is highly dubious because it embraces the artificial construction of personhood that is a function of the man-made category called “sexuality.”  As Karl Barth points out, gender is the only category that is not of human construction.  That is the biblical view.  Homosexuality, as used in the Bible and before the 19th century, is a word that describes a sexual act., not a type of person.  The way you now use it is an Enlightenment construction.  Specifically, the idea of a human as the possessor of a quality called “sexuality”  - the idea of an attribute called “sexuality” that is an aspect of human personality -is a 19th century construction.  Before the construction of that Enlightenment category, people performed “sexual acts” but they did not possess a “sexual identity.”  Once “identity” and sexual practice were linked in the world, then and only then did the denial of a particular sexual habit become a denial of another’s identity.  And that’s when the confession of sexual sin to a brother in Christ was replaced by “therapy” from a psychoanalyst. But, tragically, the whole “sexual identity” construction is artificial, and thus those who claim a finite sexual practice as the basis of their identity engage in self-destruction that leads only to despair.  The reality is that you are male or female and your true identity is “child of God.”  The only question is whether or not you will claim that identity or reject it.  For any human to claim their identity is constituted by anything other than their relationship to the Father through the Son and Holy Spirit is to reject reality and live a lie.

Second: your arguments seems to be uninformed by the distinction between the world and the church.  That distinction is all important.  We are not the people called out to be the world or to be “natural.”  It matters not a thing whether we feel the Way of Christ is pragmatic, unnatural, harsh, or too hard. It matters not at all how we think we are “wired” or how we like to describe our “sexual identity.” Those are categories of the world, not the church.  Our criterion of “good” comes not from the world but from Christ. Our criterion for “sin” comes not from the world but from the Word. Scripture is plain in declaring particular sexual habits as “sin.”  One who practices those habits is thus faced - whether they like it or not -  with the question of “who is Lord of their life?”    Self or Christ? The Christian calling is to be the people for whom Christ is Lord of all of our life. The only question - the eternal question - is whether we respond positively to that calling or not.

We keep hearing about the ideal homosexual couple that really isn’t all that different from monogamous heterosexual couples.  Yet I notice that Integrity activists routinely use terms like LGBT or LGBTI. 

In the acronym LGBTI, what do the last 3 letters mean?

B = bisexual (attracted to both sexes)

T = transgender (those who feel they are women trapped in male bodies and vice versa)

I = intersex (people with malformed or missing sex organs, ie a woman who has an undeveloped male organ inside her abdomen in place of a womb)

Is Integrity (along with other activists within TEC) seriously suggesting that the above were deliberately created this way by God, as they argue in the case of LG people?  Do they call these conditions holy and blessed?  Or argue that they are “gifts”?

If a bisexual is forced to adopt a monogamous lifestyle, can he/she argue that this is against the wishes of the Creator who clearly desired him/her to enjoy both sexes?

If a transgendered person has “corrective” surgery, is he/she disobeying the Creator by altering his/her given body type?  Or is he/she obeying God by having the operation—in which case, what about all those transgendered people who lived in the times before surgery was invented?

What about the intersex woman born with the wrong organ—is this an act of nature or a deliberate “gift” of God?  If the latter, what exactly is she supposed to do with this “gift”? 

No one is suggesting that bisexuals, transgender etc be persecuted and abused.  But how can any of these conditions be interpreted as acts of a loving God??  What exactly are we being asked to affirm here, and what (if any) theology is behind it?

Why is the fall into sin the most misunderstood doctrine of Christianity?  It is simple, yet many refuse to understand that homosexuality is part of the FALL, not part of the CREATION!  But then again, the first temptation into sin did start with “Did God really say…” (Gen 3:1).  Satan always starts with trying to get us to take what God has called sin, and claim it is not sin.  Just look at his attempted temptations of Christ.

I should of course add that all sins, including homosexuality, have been paid for by the cross and are forgiven as we repent.  And I would never claim that homosexuality is worse that any of the sins I am guilty of.  But please, stop calling that which is sin to not be sin.  That is totally unacceptable!

Didn’t you get the memo Harry?  The revisionists have redefined sin.  Sex outside marriage is no longer considered sinful, but owning a second coat is:

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=21609676&postID=116665010929501288

Back to B. Anderson’s response.  I agree that it constitutes a “why don’t you take a hike?” to the POR.  Here is my question:  to whom <b>is<b> ECUSA accountable? Our Thurs noon bible study has been working through 1 Cor for a time and just did Chpt. 9 in which Paul defends his right to speak to them authoritatively. Is there anyone in the world who can speak authoritatively to ECUSA?  If we will not listen to anybody else and it’s just us chickens, if our polity is such that self reflects self and decisions are made on that basis alone, then we are done for and in.  This is definitely the fatal flaw.

st. anonymous: How serious were they?
Actually, it’s a pretty good idea.  I wish I had that peacoat though.

I misread my Bible again!  I thought the reference to two coats was about paint, so I NEVER paint anything more than once and I give the rest of my paint away

Jennie wrote:

Back to B. Anderson’s response.  I agree that it constitutes a “why don’t you take a hike?” to the POR.  Here is my question:  to whom is ECUSA accountable? Our Thurs noon bible study has been working through 1 Cor for a time and just did Chpt. 9 in which Paul defends his right to speak to them authoritatively. Is there anyone in the world who can speak authoritatively to ECUSA?  If we will not listen to anybody else and it’s just us chickens, if our polity is such that self reflects self and decisions are made on that basis alone, then we are done for and in.  This is definitely the fatal flaw.

Jennie, i think you’ve nailed the issue. There is someone to whom the leadership of ECUSA are accountable - God. Or, more precisely, God as He has revealed Himself in scripture. They have rejected that authority.

In one sense Anderson is right, speaking in a worldly way we have no hold over them. All we can do now is make real the division that they have already chosen. They have walked apart, it’s time to crystallise that choice and not let them pretend any more.

This scripture comes to mind:

Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. 4 Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.

  PHP 2:5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:

  PHP 2:6 Who, being in very nature God,
  did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,

  PHP 2:7 but made himself nothing,
  taking the very nature of a servant,
  being made in human likeness.

  PHP 2:8 And being found in appearance as a man,
  he humbled himself and became obedient to death—even death on a cross!

  PHP 2:9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name,

  PHP 2:10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

  PHP 2:11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

This doesn’t seem very congruent with Ms. Anderson’s attitude, or that revisionist’s article that suggested that Bp. Schori march into the Primates meeting and demand an apology from the ABC and assert her position and insist that her dignity be respected.  There is a whole lot of “respect” being demanded in the revisionist camp.  I think if you have to demand it, you don’t deserve it, and you ain’t gonna get it.  If Jesus had the right to, but didn’t, who do we blinkin’ think we are?

The fruit falling off this tree is rotten.

Rocks: just another example of revisionists accepting something from scripture or tradition that jibes with their left-wing politics.  Everything else is automatically rejected.

Politics is their god.  They acknowledge no other.

Gregg-
Be LOVING in everything you do!
BEFORE YOU RESPOND TO POST, PLEASE REMEMBER MATTHEW 5:43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.”
GORDON BLAKE

Proverbs 30:
5 “Every word of God is flawless;
    he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
6 Do not add to his words,
    or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.