Virginia Goes Over the Brink

I think this vindicates the decisions made by the CANA parishes and its leaders, Martyn Minns, John Yates et al.  The mission and ministry of TEC seems increasingly focused on normalizing and celebrating LGBT lifestyles.  TEC has no message for the American middle class and the latest membership statistics, published by the National Church office, show a sharp decline across all dioceses.  Conservative or even centrist congregations all over the country will now be forced to decide whether they can stay in this denomination and still hold their parishes together.

I have said for some time that, although I respect those who out of conviction stay in TEC, I think they are making a mistake.  I think this sad event backs up that view.

The TEC is a rotting corpse.  Flee!

Don’t worry people—this is nothing that can’t be undone via a strongly worded statement from the ACI.

Greg, I suggest you hie over to TITUSONENINE and see if you can answer any of your question re: SC in +Lawrences weekly address..  I know I sure can’t help you.

Grannie Gloria in SC

“Whereas, the Church has not reached a consensus about the place of gay and lesbian persons within the life of our Church; and Whereas, there is a listening process recommended by the Windsor Dialogue Commission;”
How is this resolution in any way a call for two same sex liturgies?

With regard to question 4 and the conservative parishes remaining in the Diocese:  This was a phenomenally stupid thing for Dio VA to do just a few weeks after a final judgment entry from a civil court that says Episocopal parishes have the right to leave with their property if they wish.

Unless there really are no other conservative Episcopal parishes left, which I find hard to believe.

{yawwwwwnnnn}

Not surprised.

I’m only surprised that people can still get into a swivet about any depravity taking place in TEc.

Dcn Dale- Go to the first of the two links at the top of the story (labeled “here” and “here”). That will take you to BB’s blog, where in turn there is a link to the 43 page document (the “Whereas” you have in your post is hardly the whole of either the resolution or the documents supported by the resolution).  In the appendix of the 43 page document, you will find Rite II Eucharist in Celebration of a Committed Relationship.
Good luck with that, Diocese of Virginia.  Another diocese spits in the face of the Archbishop of Canterbury, thanking him for what have been 6 years of tireless efforts to keep TEC in the Anglican Communion.  TEC will reap what it sows.

There’s one thing clearly missing from this resolution:  A clause requiring celibacy on the part of all partners.  That, of course, will never be included, will it?

Any word on the trends in Southern Virginia (Hampton Roads)?

So the “moderate” Bp. Lee leaves his diocese in tatters.  Isn’t it a universal reality of our current ecclesiastical unpleasantness that invariably the self-professing “moderates” are just timing their exit from the closet more subtly than the overt revisionists?

Watch Texas go this way.  Lemmings intent on a swim!

Bill+

So if i understand this correctly thye are condoning this lifestyle.  And baptizing them.  I would think that that would be baptizing them into condamnation.  It is sin, is it not?  They are welcome into the church of course, but like any sin, they need to be working toward growing out of and overcoming it.  The church has a full responsibility to love them, but it also has the responsibility to lead them to truth.

In answer to your questions Greg:
1. Maybe not this year, but next, even if Falls Church had been there.  If they had enough power to stop things like this, Lee would never have supported VGR.
2. How liberal or conservative a diocese is is irrelevant.  What matters are how liberal the delegates to the convention are.  They got elected.  I’ve never understood it, but often enough seen it happen- the two most liberal people in the parish run for delegate, no one opposes them, they win by unanimous acclimation.
3. South Carolina is banking on Mark Lawrence to live a long and healthy life.  No one more conservative than Peter Lee or Rob O’neil will ever gain consent for election in the future.  Unfortunately for South Carolina, +Mark Lawrence will be deposed when he signs the covenant in opposition to the will of the TEC HoB. (I know, that is both hypothetical and pessimistic, but this sure looks like a runaway train, and Bishop Lawrence is standing in the middle of the tracks hoping to stop the train.)
4.  Part of the thought in doing this is to drive orthodox out of parishes where they are not an overwhelming majority- thereby stemming the property loss risk.

This is why CANA was born.  A diocese that would stand for nothing has fallen for anything. I pray that the reasserters still within DioVA will now see that their convictions and petitions mean absolutely nothing to the princes and deputies of Mayo House.
Too, I’d pay good money to see this scenario play out…  A faithfully monoagamous, iscestuous couple comes to St. Hildas in the Hollow for their relationship to be blessed, as R4-a clearly includes them…
Grist for the mill…

our responsibility to respond to the pastoral needs of our faithful gay and lesbian members in a spirit of love, compassion and respect

That is what all churches and Christians are required to do by our Savior for homosexuals, murderes thieves, arsonist, wife abusers, etc., but that does not mean approving, celebrating, or propagating the sin.  We must recognize how devastating sin is to families and individuals.  I think few churches know how to deal with any sexual sin in particular.  Lord Have Mercy.

.  .  .  when those relationships are “characterized by fidelity, monogamy,  .  .”

Did you hear the one about the gay couple who walked into a bar filled with their friends. 

They got everyone’s attention and announced:  “We want you all to know that our relationship is characterized by fidelity and monogamy.”

Everyone roared with laughter and went back to their drinking.

In answer to hypothetical #1, I think it highly unlikely that, had all of our parishes and missions that left TEC in 2005-06 remained in TEC, we would have been able to keep this resolution from passing in 2009.  Virginia was known as a moderate diocese in the 80’s, 90’s and until 2003, because Peter Lee said we were moderate and because its Gen Con delegation was split 2 liberals and 2 conservatives for many years. 

Even when he began his tenure as bishop known as a conservative, Peter James Lee never came to his conclusions from the basis of Biblical conviction, and neither did those who revered him. In 2000, I estimate that maybe 30% of the Diocese was conservative by theological conviction, and only 10% was truly liberal.  I witnessed a steady drift leftward among the 60% of the leaders of the Diocese whose attitudes were apparently determined more by current cultural mores than any particular theological or Scriptural bases.

I remember reading Lee’s foreword in the book of essays on homosexuality called A Wholesome Example, when he said in about 1992 that in 20 years, we would all be looking back on this issue wondering what all the fuss was about. The liberals always knew that Lee was on their side, but that it would take a long time to bring the middle along, so they knew to be patient and stick with him. For me, the change in the sexual conduct policy at Virginia Seminary in 1997 was a sea change, as Lee abstained in the board vote. 

While Lee voted fairly conservatively in those days, e.g. on sex at Lambeth in 1998, not wanting to rock the boat, he was always open to whatever the tiny synod of ECUSA might want to do, regardless of the views of rest of the Church worldwide.  In 2003, he admitted that one of the reasons he had voted to confirm Robinson was because he did not want to be perceived as being “late to affirm justice” as he had been when he had not joined in Civil Rights marches in the 60’s.  For the middle, the question changed from “Why?” to Why not?”  They forgot that those who want the Church to change her sexual mores bear the burden of proof to convince all the church to accept the change before they forge ahead in practice, because they operate on the basis of popular vote.

I wasn’t at this year’s Council, so I don’t know “why now.”  I’d say, however, why not now, since all restraint has so clearly been thrown to the wind, and the conservatives left in DioVa are apparently so frightened of the bishop and the left that no one speaks up against spending millions in lawsuits against my colleagues (at least they did not speak up last year, I’d be interested to learn if anyone did this year)? Certainly, the Bible no longer guides that diocese.  I agree with Roger Schellenberg that these votes are the sort of thing that happens when you take votes on theological questions (I’d add, …in situations where there is no defined doctrine or confessional statements or normative theological standards).

Clancy Nixon, Church of the Holy Spirit (Anglican), Ashburn, Virginia

Obviously Episcopalians are a bunch of people who can’t decide what they believe. They have turned me into an agnostic.
Gloria.

Oh no say it isn’t so.  Not agnostic.  Only Christ is where true knowledge comes from.  I am going to get hit!

Wow! The Anglicans are fortunate to have Clancy Nixon and his family. They are a brilliant and classy couple!

Fr. Nixon has it right, both with regards to the history AND the sinful pitfall of doing theology by majority vote. 

I imagine the Virginian Founding Fathers are also turning in their graves…

You’ll all be pleased to know that Fr. Nixon’s church is indeed listed on http://shelterinthestorm.org.. LOL
Grannie Gloria

There is nothing in the Virginia resolutions that undermines Holy Matrimony. It undermines the mistaken belief that there can be nothing holy or blessed in a committed relationship between two members of the same gender.

What the people of Virginia have done is what Christians from all over the United States have done—they have weighed their experience with real people living the life God has called them to with love, mutuality, prayer and all the rest that is noted in the resolution. This is nothing less than what has happened over the centuries with women Christians, disabled Christians, Christians of different coloration than peach. That God’s love is present in these relationships should not surprise anyone.

23, You seriously need to try reading the Bible. Seriously, without smoking something first.

While I am troubled by the resolution adopted by the Diocese of Virginia, I am, as a non-Anglican, extremely puzzled as to why this concerns the typical Episcopalian.  Until now, I am unaware of any time that the Episcopal Church ever took a moral stand on anything.  As Robin Williams is reputed to have said, the Episcopal Church is “All of the pageantry - none of the guilt.”  In a church that is known to have that as one of its guiding principles, why is anyone surprised at the action that has been taken in Virginia?

[23] TBWSantaFe,
Do you ever consider that every time something like this happens that TEC membership will decline?  Do you care?

TBWSantaFe - How do you know God’s love is present?

Thanks for sharing Fr. Nixon’s website. I love it! He is doing a fantastic job.

#26 - We were told this would cause flocks of people to beat a path to the doors of Episcopal Churches everywhere.  They almost got it right.  Just had the wrong direction of the feet.
#23 - My mama use to tell me - Wishing don’t make it so, child.  You should seriously consider the suggestion of #24.

as one of those “renegade Anglicans” from a breakaway church (St. MArgaret’s, Woodbridge, VA) I am not surprised. If Lee had any backbone at all, neither this nor the litigation against our churchs would be happening. I do believe that, like the litigation against our churchs, the VADio will lose on this action as well. As for how the most liberal ones get elected? They are typically the loudaest blowholes, while the rest of us conservatives sit quietly in the back, doing nothing, watching things crumble around us, and quietly grumbling complaints about how bad it is. Rise up or shut up…

GC2009 is going to be craptastic.  If a diocese like Va. does this, you can imagine with all the other ultra-lib dioceses out there how little “restraint” will be exercised.  Without the CANA parishes, you can imagine the type of deputies Va. is going to send to Anaheim.

In answer to question 1, Truro’s Vestry in late 2006 saw the signs of this coming, as it explained in its apology for recommending that the church reaffiliate, here:
http://truro.timberlakepublishing.com/content.asp?contentid=15343
As Clancy explains, others saw the same thing.

I suspect the Integrity Organization submitted the resolution “R-4a Integrity of Committing Relationships”

That resolution covers more than just SS “behavior”.

Apocalypse,

The significance is that, as I mentioned in the main post, DioVA has been perceived by many in the church as a center-right diocese, albeit one that has been drifting leftward for a while. Yes, Peter Lee voted for VGR, but that vote raised a lot of eyebrows, for the same reason that this convention vote is raising eyebrows: They are actions that are more typical of dioceses that are far more liberal. If the current spectrum of liberal-to-conservative dioceses in TEC runs from 1 (most liberal) to 10 (most conservative), it’s probably accurate to say that the range of dioceses that have authorized SSB’s starts at 1 and extends perhaps to 3 or may 4. DioVA has been perceived to sit somewhere around 6.

In that sense, it significantly expands the range on that spectrum of dioceses that have approved same-sex blessings. It gives a lot of cover to those dioceses to the left of DioVA - in the 4-5 range - that haven’t yet authorized them. In those dioceses, proponents are able to say the equivalent of, “It is an outrage that a diocese as conservative as Virginia has same-sex blessings, while our enlightened oasis of progressivism doesn’t.” A little pounding on the podium, and they’ve got their SSB’s.

It also gives cover to those dioceses just to the right of DioVA - in the 6-7 range - that contain active revisionist factions angling for same-sex blessings. In these dioceses, proponents are able to say, “Hey, what’s the big deal? Look at Virginia - they’re not much more conservative than we are, and THEY have same-sex blessings. Let’s get with it!”

Virginia’s actions extend the cover of its perceived legitimacy all the way out to perhaps the 7 pr 8 range, and to my mind, brings much closer the day of reckoning for dioceses like South Carolina, Western Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Central Florida, Tennessee, and several others.

The leadership in those dioceses have, I believe, settled into a pattern of thinking and actions based on the assumption that when external pressure is exerted on them to approve same-sex blessings, it will come from above - from 815 and General Convention. But if DioVA’s actions embolden other diocesan conventions to approve similar resolutions, then they’ll find that the pressure is coming from their left flank as well. I don’t believe - with the possible exceptions of DioSC and DioWL - that they’ve made preparations to deal with the pressure from above… forget dealing with pressure from two directions. This may not change the game for guys like +Lawrence or +MacPherson, but if I’m +Bauerschmidt, +Gray, +Parsley, +Jenkins, +Wemberly, +Howe, and that gang… I’m starting to get REALLY concerned, because I know that my dioceses have rabid progressive factions that are large enough and crazy enough to start pushing for this; I know that my convention delegations are much more liberal than my rank-and-file; and I know that my rank-and-file will react to the passage of resolutions such as DioVA’s by making my life miserable, though a combination of irate letters and phone calls, reduced giving, and leaving my churches altogether.

Of course, we know what most of these guys are going to do: They’re going to continue with business as usual, hoping things will either blow over, or that they can manage the shrinkage if it happens at a controlled pace, or, I guess for some of them, that the loss of conservatives will be offset by an influx of liberals.

What? Why are you laughing?

My God, how far this “church” has fallen. “Holy Love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God” Rather a stretch you think?

DioVA is like a comatose person being kept alive by a ventilator.  Once it was productive and had a reason for living.  Now, there is a pulse; there is a brain wave; there is a heart beat, but there is no longer a reason to live.  Unfortunately, the medical staff has just voted to stop paying the electric bill…

On the other hand, there is much to be said for remaining in the Corinthian church in the face of its approval of incest and for evangelizing it from the inside as best one can. What I mean, of course, is that those inside have an opportunity to repeat the message underlying 1 Cor 5 over and over until the Holy Spirit grants discernment to those who listen and listen.

I realize this course is not for everyone and feel no animus toward those persons, parishes, and dioceses that have left. I do, I must admit, wonder why those who are no longer part of the American Episcopal Church continue their bruxism over it. The Anglican Communion and the Anglican tradition are not “ekklesia,” the church, as Paul used the word.  Denominations are human institutions, not protected ipso facto by the Holy Spirit, and sinfulness is to be expected. If one has gone to a denomination that does not officially embrace sexual sin, why not spend one’s efforts on the worms that are surely silently tunneling into its hull?

TBWSantaFe, (23)

How do you explain away the ‘from the beginning’ nature of ‘one man, one woman, one lifetime’ of marriage?

A simple reading of the plain text shows this need not be restricted to same sex couples but could be applied to consensual incest as well.

blessededness
My dictionary seems to have missed this word.  Possibly Irenaeus could help us out here. 

There is nothing in the Virginia resolutions that undermines Holy Matrimony. It undermines the mistaken belief that there can be nothing holy or blessed in a committed relationship between two members of the same gender.

Ah yes - Baghdad Tom chimes in right on cue with his usual delusional.

Tom, perhaps that’s true of other faiths, but it’s not true of Christianity. Perhaps you can point to the scripture that even hints of support for your claim.

OH WAIT. YOU CAN’T.

We know you can’t, because you’ve been at this for at least a couple of years on this site alone, and you haven’t even come close.

What the people of Virginia have done is what Christians from all over the United States have done—they have weighed their experience with real people living the life God has called them to with love, mutuality, prayer and all the rest that is noted in the resolution.

Tom, let’s quantify what you mean by “Christians from all over the United States”: Tiny churches such as the UCC and the MCC… a minority of members in the small-and-shrinking TEC… plus a smattering of Lutherans, Methodists, and Presbyterians. The three largest denominations - the Roman Catholics, the Southern Baptists, and the Pentacostals - haven’t, and neither has any significant percentage of the non-denominational churches. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of Christians in America HAVE NOT “weighed their experience with real people living the life God has called them to with love blah blah blah blah blah…”

1. It would have happened, just a few years later.
2. I had hoped, against hope, that South Carolina would realign before it was too late. Your comment that South Carolina has waited too long to leave is depressing, but on reflection is likely true. SC’s leadership, and numbers, wil be missed in the ACNA. It will still be doing good work within TEC, but staying within the body means it will suffer from attrition of orthodox members, and ultimate accomodation with TEC’s leadership. The Virginia resolution may increase the urgency of those in SC who are still hopeful for a realignment, and when (f if) that does not materialize they will leave.
3.  For other “institutional” Dioceses, this will certainly not cause “retrenchment”. That boat has left the dock. These types of resolutions will be commonplace.

San Diego has its convention in early February. No resolutions yet posted on their website about this, but at last year’s convention, a committee to study “Holiness in Relationships” was created and they are due to submit a report at this year’s convention. What do you want to bet someone proposes something at the last minute or from the floor requesting that San Diego recognize same-sex relationships? Bishop Mathes is not the type to want to seem “behind the times.”

Ahhh yes, the beginning of the rush to affirm and institutionalize gay marriage in TEC, prior to “GenCon09, or Harvey Milk dons a mitre”. The word has gone out, dioceses, line up and be counted to drive the completion of this innovation home. ABC, there was a brief moment when you could have perhaps given the progressives pause, back a few years, but no more. Nothing, not covenant, not Windsor, not indaba, is going to keep this agenda from becoming the reality for TEC. And then watch as all the GLBT folks come pouring into the ranks of TEC, to easily replace all the exiting ortho-retrogrades. Folks the TEC country club welcomes you few, you happy, monogamous, committed same sex couples.

More grist for the mill in Egypt. Please readers do not take the troll bait that has littered every thread by engaging with the inane distractions.
Intercessor

Greg,
I found your statement that:  “not only does it effectively nullify the significance of the sacrament of Holy Matrimony.” Interesting.
Hmmmm.  According to the 39 Articles, there are only two sacraments. 
Perhaps the change in the view of marriage from a sacrament to a civil contract, was the beginning of the end culminating in same sex blessings?

#24 Alli B—LOL! Way too true

Hey Clancy—great job - thanks! You saved me from trying to muddle through along those lines. And because you have seen it from the inside, you can be specific and detailed in a way I could not. It really irks me the way Lee gets portrayed as moderate.

Blessings,
Pat Kashtock
Take It for What It’s Worth

For those interested, I commend Baby Blue’s complete account of the proceedings.  A lot of things are fascinating in what happened, but to me nothing was more interesting than the fact that the Archbishop of Wales (Barry Morgan) ended day two by scrapping his originally planned meditation, and instead effusively commended the convention for it’s decision. 

Morgan also vowed to fight the recognition of the new province “with every fiber of his being.”  Now, I’m not surprised that he would feel this strongly, but I am surprised that he would say it so publicly, and in Virginia.  Nice touch, Bishop Lee.

Oh…those with family and kids going to a TEC church in Virginia tomorrow please start working up your script as your priest wants to give Holy Blessings to Tony and Bart at your Rite II service. My kids,God bless them, would tug at my sleeve and say ” ugh Dad…maybe we should like go now…”
Intercessor

One thing I got from BabyBlue is that Va. invited Barry Morgan from Wales as a special guest.  That explains the horribly leftward bent of the proceedings.  The fact that somehow Lee was anything BUT a liberal in “moderate clothing.”

Bo (39) writes: How do you explain away the ‘from the beginning’ nature of ‘one man, one woman, one lifetime’ of marriage?
Unfortunately for Biblical literalists, the practice though most of Biblical history included polygamy—even in New Testament times. It is very clear in the Biblical record. What we hold up as Christian marriage today, including the equality of the married partners, did not exist until last century. Again, this is no great secret.

Paula, there is no such thing as “consensual incest.”

Greg (42) I did not claim Biblical authority in my posting. I think I have cited Bill Coats’ piece on the authority of reason, especially as it pertains to experience, in the development of doctrine. That is nothing new to Christian theology and doctrine. In fact, if you read the Synoptics carefully you will see that is in play in Jesus’ own developing ethics. I assume you are not a Biblical literalist—and if I am correct, then I can further assume you know well what I am talking about.

I believe I am right about my assessment of the growing numbers of people who recognize the godliness of gay and lesbian relationships they have encountered. That is not restricted to the liberal congregations. Of course, you and I are going to be meeting quite different people. I can’t imagine you, as lay or ordained person, responding openly and pastorally to a gay or lesbian couple you would run into—I think they would see you coming and clam up immediately. I’ve seen an openness and respect coming even from first generation Mexican families in Central California, one of the most conservative Christian groups around.

Are there people in every denomination who believe as you do? Yes. Does the way they reach their belief reflect the way Jesus looked at marginalized people? No.

Harry Edmond (27)  asks how do I know God’s love is present.  By the same means I determine if God’s love is present in a heterosexual relationship. Paul writes about the gifts of the Spirit. I use those. Jesus speaks about the Beatitudes as a sign of blessedness. I use that. I believe with the author of the Johannine epistles that all love comes from God—it is not anything we can manufacture. So when it is present in a relationship that is a sign that God is present there. We all need to spend more time with I John.

There is no such thing as consensual incest? How about the brother and sister in Germany who want to get married?  This was posted on BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6424937.stm

RE: “Paula, there is no such thing as “consensual incest.””

Uh . . . yes there is.

Tom Woodward demonstrates the same level of vacuous blankness here as he does about the simple basics of the Gospel.

#52 Really good to see such honesty - the arguments in favor of gay marriage also support polygamy.

TBWSanteFe - Not good enough.  Gifts of the Spirit include self-control - since God has clearly stated that homosexuality is a sin, no self-control there.  The Beatitudes talk about those who hunger and thirst for righteousness.  Paul clearly states that homosexuality is an act of the sinful nature.  So, it doesn’t fit the Beatitudes either.  Bank robbers love money, pedophiles love children, gluttons love food - are all those loves from God?  Just because you have an emotion or feeling of “love” does not mean it comes from God.  As for 1 John, take to heart 1 John 1:8-10.  You claim that homosexuality is not a sin - you deceive yourself and the truth is not in you.

Not that I expect to change your mind, I have read this blog long enough to know that.  And you will not change mine, since it is firmly based on the Scriptures.  All you are is a false teacher leading the sheep astray - and thus you must be opposed in the name of the Truth that is Christ.  I am just glad I am a member of a church that realizes this (LCMS) instead of the church I grew up in that has completely lost its way (ECUSA).

P.S.  It is Edmon, not Edmond.  But I find that no one can spell my 5 letter name correctly.

A somewhat surprising and disappointing result to me, although not completely shocking for the reason that your question 1 identifies.  I think BB’s account of things (assuming accuracy) strongly suggests that if the CANA folks had been there, the resolutions wouldn’t have passed this year.  (And I don’t see why next year would have been different, except for whatever GC 2009 does.)  In my mind, the “emerging consensus” in the DVa reflects the fact that conservatives have left.  But let’s ask the real question now—if leaving means that a diocese goes over the brink, is that a reason not to leave?

From the “get-go” we have been hearing from those who choose not to remain in the Diocese of Quincy that they want to “reform” TEC from within.  If you really want to read some interesting comments go to http://episcopaldioceseofquincy.ning.com/
to see exactly the opposite is true.  They simply want to stay in TEC come hell or high water and to be “inclusive.”  Pay particular attention to their sponsors.  Comments are found on members’ pages.

Godly sin?  What?  John piper is right the world is awash in false love known as sex outside of Biblical marriage.  Just like a fish does not know it is wet, so does society not recognize it is awash in sexual perversion.

It is amazing that of all the responses to this post that there is only one reference to any scripture at all. This is a very simple matter. 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1 is clear mandate for all true Christians to “Come ye out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, And touch no unclean thing and I will receive you”.
The Episcopal church is corrupt to the core as evidenced by what is going on today. No amount of references to man-made traditions or Nicolaitan leadership titles impresses our Holy God. Most of the leadership are unbelievers. If it were not so, the Episcopal Church would not be in the sad state it is today. The “Church” is the living body of Christ on earth, not institutions. Our loyalty is to Him, not them. So as an organization of believers goes corrupt, Christ says come out and start over or find one that still teaches and practices the truth. By the way, only local assemblies of believers are portrayed in Scripture, not huge institutions which inevitably become corrupt with ungodliness, greed, and power. At the local level, pastors and elders are held accountable by their congregations not some ecclesiastical hierarchy. When I realized what the Bible said, I made this decision 27 years ago and have never looked back! Is your loyalty to Christ or an institution?

#27 How do you know it’s not?

While I admire the zealousness shown here of defending the faith and the overwhelming concern for the sins of others (as judged by man), I can’t help but wonder how fragile is your own faith and relationship that change of any kind threatens it? Your right and responsibilities in marriage do not change because of this resolution. Your ability to worship as you choose, and believe as you have come to understand through piety, study, and action are not in danger. This resolution simply states that the church will no longer tolerate your personal prejudice in regards to who else may worship; and, yes, as they see fit. If and when you are willing to walk the walk with all your brothers and sisters, please know that you too are welcome.

1 Corinthians is often held up as justification for this prejudice, but there is a stark contrast between the sections on sexual immorality and those on spiritual gifts and love. How should we solve this dichotomy? Should we pick those passages we prefer to be of greater import, or should we follow the example of Christ; always favoring inclusion and reaching out to those society has deemed flawed, sinful, and unworthy? Paul tells us quite clearly the order of faith, hope and love: the greatest of these is love.

Also, regarding the posting quote, Matthew 5:43-45:
Who is being persecuted here? The orthodox who wish to impose their beliefs and biases on others, or the few who are simply asking for inclusion and opportunity?

As someone who has lived in VA for about 20 years, I am deeply saddened, but hardly shocked.  This craven capitulation to the cultural zeitgeist has been in the making for a long time.  I vividly remember attending the annual council of the Diocese of VA as an observer in 2007 (as a merely licensed priest, canonically resident elsewhere, I had no voice or vote).  I was curious to gauge the mood after the departure of 15 of the most conservative churches in the diocese.

Now I’ve attended many of VA’s annual councils over the preceding 20 years, but I was still stunned and dismayed by what I observed two years ago.  There was deep-seated anger toward the departed churches evident in what I saw and heard.  Bishop Lee got a standing ovation more than once for his handling of things, even though this was AFTER the lawsuits had been filed and the famous Protocol suddenly aborted and scuttled.  But I was unprepared emotionally for the disturbing speech that suffragan bishop David Jones gave two years ago.

I knew +David Jones better than +Peter Lee.  I had worked closely with +Jones on the Commission on Church Planting back in the early 1990s, and I knew +Jones’ deep and enthusiastic commitment to the cause of planting new churches and that the great majority of those new churches had courageous, solidly orthodox clergy that +Jones had approved and sometimes recruited.  But I also knew that +Jones had selected Jane Dixon+ (yes, that Jane Dixon, the future suffragan bishop in DC) as his assistant when he was rector of Good Shepherd, Burke (in northern VA).

Alas, that day two years left me stunned as I heard +Jones make a blistering and fierce attack on those (unnamed) critics who asserted that the Diocese of VA was no longer centrist, or orthodox, or faithfully biblical.  There was a bitter edge to his voice that was unmistakable.  And after his angry tirade, he too got a standing ovation.  It was very clear to me that VA had already taken a significant lurch to the left in the wake of the departure of those 15 leading churches.

I went up to +Jones during a break and tried to engage him in conversation as politely as I could, but that encounter left me even more shaken.  We’d always gotten along well, but when I protested the tone of his speech and urged him to reconsider, insisting that homosexual behavior was not a subject on which compromise was possible (It’s not a Romans 14 issue but a Galatians 1 issue is how I put it, and he knew full well what I meant), he just glared at me and didn’t say a word.  He was deeply angry, or “seriously displeased” (in Jane Austen language).  I couldn’t believe it.  It seemed so out of character for him, but the hostility was palpable.

I am reminded of the tragic fate and demise of King Saul, who went mad and whose reign ended in disgrace and defeat, committing suicide on the battlefied after being wounded by the Phillistines.  Both +Lee and +Jones, and many other fine clergy that I’ve known in VA for years seem to me to have been struck by a kind of madness that is perplexing and deeply disturbing.  And like Saul, they have turned on the young David’s in their midst.

This was +Lee’s final annual council, his swan song.  He retires on October 1st.  What a terrible way to end a long and distinguished episcopate.  It drives home the sad truth that it’s not how you begin a race that matters, it’s how you finish it.  +Lee ran well for many years, but faltered and then miserably failed in the home stretch.

Thanks to Fr. Clancy Nixon for weighing in early on this thread; he rarely posts here.  I appreciate his personal perspective as someone canonically resident in VA (which I never was, and boy am I glad now).

One of my good friends in Richmond, Fr. Richard Zalesak, first vicar of St. Francis in Goochland/Manakin (the western suburbs), is having his last Sunday this weekend.  He accepted a call to a church in the Diocese of TN.  Fr. Zalesak is a staunchly conservative evangelical (even more so than I am), but he’s been looking for a way out for some time.  I’ll bet he’s happier than ever to be departing VA now.

The handwriting is on the wall.  The overthrow of Babylon is imminent (Daniel 5).

Remember, the state of VA is considered a political bellwether too.  It hadn’t voted for a Democratic candidate for President since Lyndon Johnson, but in November it went for Obama.  The so-called Old Dominion isn’t as old-fashioned and conservative as it used to be.

And as for the Diocese of Southern Virginia, forget it.  I live in Newport News now, and I’ve done interim and supply ministry in both dioceses for two decades, and I’ve always found Southern VA to be FAR more liberal.  Their annual council is in mid February.  They will be eager to follow suit, just in the way Greg has predicted (“we can’t let a moderate diocese like VA lleave us behind in the dust…”).

Bottom line:  The Titanic is getting ever closer to slipping completely beneath the waves.  I hope not only SC, but Albany, Western KS, Western La, and other conservative dioceses wake up and realize that there is no hope for pursuing the inside strategy anymore.

I’m reminded of what Gandalf said to the rest of the Fellowship of the Ring there on the edge of the chasm deep underground in the mines of Moria, after the Balrog had snagged him with his fiery whip and was about to drag him down to the abyss:

“Fly, you fools!”

David Handy+

TBWSantaFe (52)

That’s not an answer to my question.

I didn’t ask you to ‘explain away’ the misuse of marriage (it was the culturally accepted misuse of marriage that Christ was condemning when he made the statement!!!!),

I asked you how you explained away the standard set by God from the beginning. 

Now I ask an additional question, while awaiting a genuine reply to the first one.

“Should the Church uphold the standard of God, or of the Culture?”

We agree that much evil has been done to what God created, we live in a fallen world. 

It seems to me, that the church however should strive for the goal described by Jesus (one man, one woman, one life-time), not ‘bless’ the misuse.  The church shouldn’t bless polygamist unions, same-sex unions, nor serial polygamy.

24- Alli B.
Having read the Bible, several times, without having smoked anything first I have come to the same conclusion TBWSantFe has.  I recognize that the Old Testament speaks several times against sodomy, and can be read as speaking against homosexual love, however I also read in the Old Testament a condemnation of shellfish and the growing of two crops side by side.  Therefore I take those statements of the Old Testament that speak out against homosexuality with a grain of salt, believing that they are based on their times and on the desire to continue to propagate the Jewish people.  Paul also takes a stand against homosexuality and this one is, honestly, more difficult for me.  It comes face to face with my readings of the Gospels, in which I find a Christ so loving that He doesn’t judge those with whom he dines or those who follow them but loves them always.  I try to follow in those footsteps of love and inclusion and I feel led to the inclusion of homosexuals in the church.  This is my reading of scriptures not yours, and possibly not TBWSantaFe’s, however I wanted to point out that smoking something isn’t the only way to get to where some people in the church are.

26- DCN Dale
I think that TEC membership will continue to decline as long as the church refuses to take a stand on issues.  I don’t for a second agree that taking a stand on an issue like homosexuality (whichever way the stance is taken) will lead to a greater decline.  I believe that you and I can agree that people feel the call of Jesus in their lives, and desire to be connected to the love of God that is available through a belief in Jesus Christ, however I think that people demand that a stand be taken (one way or another).  I believe that for too long TEC has been willing to sit on the sidelines and ignore the issues of the day when the Church should be called to following the ministry of Jesus in challenging social norms and being outside of the comfortable grip of society.

27- Harry Edmon
How do we ever know the answer to that question?  We cannot.  Lincoln once made the point that in war both sides pray that God will be on their side when in fact we should be praying that we are on God’s side.  I make this prayer daily knowing full well that I could be wrong, but hoping that God and Christ will recognize that mistakes made were made with the hope that I was doing the will of God.

38- Bo
I recognize the story of Eden as part of the Primordial history and therefore probably outside of actual history.  It is a combination of myth and truth, revealing much about God and man (and the relationship between the two) without having to be tied to actual fact.  It isn’t, to me, as important whether or not the events of the Creation story happened in the way they did as it is important what the writing down of the story in that way tells us about God and ourselves and how we are called to relate to God.  Also, the resolution in VA doesn’t affect the sacramental rite or marriage but instead offers up the possibility of a separate and different form of blessing for relationships outside of marriage. 

This is my first time posting on this site while I have been a reader for some time.  To be honest I think I disagree with most of the people who post or read here.  I also think that it is important for me to read this site for that very reason.  It is rare in today’s world, and unfortunately so in today’s Episcopal Churches, that people who completely disagree have a chance to sit down and talk with each other, to come to an understanding of the position of the other and to leave the table still honestly disagreeing.  I think the Church today, on both sides of all issues, places too high a value on everyone being forced to agree with everyone else.  I think that this website, as much as I might disagree with the theology of many participants can serve as a table for those difficult discussions.
I do wish that everyone would read the bolded text below the posting area before they posted as I think this sites comments (and to be fair a number of the original postings) can sometimes ignore it.

NRA, 62, I think the old adage about flies, honey, and vinegar is a significant reason for the attitude change you discuss.  How would you expect +Lee, +Jones, and others to react after being lambasted as non-Christian and either evil or working for evil?

Sarah Hey - Incest between a parent and child is never consensual in that the power relationship and other things make free consent impossible. The courts agree with me. We also treat incest between siblings the same way, determining that such relationships, even when child bearing is impossible, to be non-consensual.

Harry Edmon - first, I apologize for the misspelling. Second, there is no record of “God stating that homosexuality is a sin.”  Paul believed it so, but Paul also believed women should not speak in church. There is plenty of evidence of God’s blessing the lives of homosexual persons—you won’t find it here at SF. Your argument and others here starts with your conclusion and then works backwards. I think if you follow the path of Jesus in the Synoptics and in John you will find something quite different.

Without a belief in Biblical literalism, the arguments against homosexual relations doesn’t hold up. It’s OK to believe in Biblical literalism—it is just that the Anglican Communion rejected that approach a long, long time ago.

RE: “Is your loyalty to Christ or an institution?”

Surely, Once Blind, you’re not implying that one cannot be loyal to Christ and a member of an institution.  If so, when do you intend to renounce your citizenship as a US citizen?

RE: “I’m reminded of what Gandalf said to the rest of the Fellowship of the Ring . . .”

So far, no one of Gandalf’s stature has said such a thing.

ChrisRobinson (64),

It doesn’t detract from the injunction against divorce if you take Genesis as ‘meta-history’.  Likewise it doesn’t detract from the ‘one man, one woman’ nature of the union either.

Christ condemned his culture’s misuse of marriage, and reminded his followers that it was to be one man, one woman, till death. 

Our Lord stood firm against those who wished to manipulate marriage into an institution that pleased them. 

Do you think He approves of ‘blessings’ for fornicators? Idolaters? Adulterers?

TBWSantaFe (66)
Consensual relations between ADULT children and parents is possible.

Bo,
Marriage isn’t being changed.  I don’t know of anyone in the church who has married two gay partners.  I also think that we are going to reach an impasse under your understanding of any sexual relationship outside of marriage being a sin.  I honestly believe that two committed and monogamous gay people should be given the opportunity to be committed and monogamous inside the church.  We may simply have to agree to disagree on that belief.

Robincm (70)
It seems to me that you’re saying that there shouldn’t be ‘gay marriage’, only some ‘other form’ of ‘blessing’ for ‘sexual relationships’ among monogamous couples out side of marriage.

And that you don’t think sex outside marriage is (always) a sin.

Do I understand you correctly?

Bo,
To be honest, I don’t know yet where I come down on gay marriage inside the church.  I know that as far as the state is concerned not having gay marriage is, in my opinion, bigotry and un-constitutional.  In the church, I’m not so sure where I come down.  However, the issue right now is not really over gay marriage but instead a blessing outside of the sacramental rite of gay marriage, and in the situation of two partners committing to each other for a lifetime, not I don’t think that their sexual relationship is a sin in the eyes of God just because the church doesn’t recognize it.

At least we can agree on our understanding of your position.  We’re also in agreement about not being in agreement on the sinfulness of sex outside marriage.  The fact that we don’t agree, doesn’t preclude us understanding each other’s positions though, and I’d like to continue to explore yours.  I appreciate your willingness to respond to my earlier questions, and would like to continue:

Would your willingness to see as ‘not sin’ extend so far as to include two adults in an incestuous relationship as long as it was monogamous as well?

Why do you not see the ‘one man, one woman, one lifetime’ as binding on the church for marriage? ( I can understand why it would not be seen as binding on the Civil Authorities, but don’t see why it wouldn’t be in the Church).

From Colorado to Virgina and spreading- the summer storm clouds are forming.  The primates meeting next month have had it put in their face with a double-dare-ya to do anything about it. Some will do, most will not.

I will light a candle for those of you who have not left, warriors and wimps, prisoners and the deliberately blind.  Who has not been all of these at one time or another?

May the Lord bless and keep you, each and all.

Reply to #12 gary.george.
AMEN and Hallalulya!  One brother has what many do not have…common sense!  Thank you for your comment!

For those who keep insisting that homosexual activity is blessed by God.  I am curious what do you believe is the purpose of marriage?  And do you believe marriage is in any way a reflection of life in the Trinity?  Is it an allegory for Christ and His Church?  And why does Christ say marriage had its orgins in the beginning?

To #18 Gloria…who cares what this church believes?  This is not the only church on earth.  Its between you and God, not you and the church.  The Bible says, “Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”  It doesn’t say to listen to church leaders and let them tell you what to believe.  It says to study the Bible for yourself and seek out those who teach the truth.  You should be seeking after God not seeking after people.  God is God and people are sinners with faults who should be seeking salvation.  After all the people in history that have sacrificed their lives, been tortured to death, suffered privation and want, endured persecution for their faith….this is not the time to make their sacrifices for our religious freedom lightly.  Respect it, carry on.  They will be rewarded by God in heaven as will everyone who stays true even if the whole world is wrong.  Remember that in Sodom and Gomorrah, only a few people were saved.  Remember that when Noah built the ark, the majority of the people on earth were lost.  Wide is the way that leads to destruction…and narrow is the way that leads to eternal life and few there be that find it.  But if you seek God with all your heart, He will lead you in the right path…church or no church.  Study the Bible and the Holy Spirit will give you knowledge and you will follow God’s will.

Without a belief in Biblical literalism, the arguments against homosexual relations doesn’t hold up. It’s OK to believe in Biblical literalism—it is just that the Anglican Communion rejected that approach a long, long time ago.

I think I understand now. You think some of the core truth claims of orthodox Christianity are false. You want to replace them with truths you find more plausible. I can even understand why you might want to name said novelty as “Christianity”. What bemuses me is why anyone else should accept your redefinition.

Episcopal Diocese of Virginia.
Spork.
Done!

Martial Artist

To #23 SantaFe…Perversion and engaging in unatural sexual acts is not love.  Love is doing what is right, moral, and according to the will of God.  The purpose of sex is to express love between a man and woman and create families.  The vagina is made for a penis during sex, delivering babies, having periods, etc.  This is the natural function of the body as God created it to be.  It is not for having lesbian sex.  The anus/rectum is for getting rid of bodily waste products (####), not for inserting a penis to the purpose of having sex.  God designed sex to be between a man and a woman because it was His will that every child would have a mother and father to raise him/her.  According to the laws of nature which God created, children cannot be produced through homosexual acts.  Therefore it is nature’s intent that people who engage in homosexual acts should not pass on their genes, produce, or raise children.  Never in history has a homosexual act produced children.  It is only through artificial means that a homosexual act has produced a child (artificial insemination as part of a sex act).  However, billion+ children have been produced through heterosexual sex.  I have never met a fatherless or motherless child who was not negatively affected in some way by not having a mother or a father.  Also, I have never met a child who was not in some way negatively affected by having their parents divorce…even though it may have been necessary because of violence.  Destroying the traditional family unit is destructive to society…and has resulted in children joining gangs, etc.  Although not every child who does not have a mother & father in the home grows up to be a criminal or bad person…it does make growing up difficult…emotionally, financially, and its also necessary to have good male and female role models which they are likely to miss out on.  Having two mothers or two fathers does not take the place of their real father or mother.  Having another male relative try to stand in for the real father or mother may help but also is not the ideal.  A Christian person will do all they possibly can to ensure that they can provide a good home that fulfills the needs of the child before bringing a child into the world.  Intentionally going out of your way to have a child through artificial insemination (where the child most likely will not know who the father is) and intentionally creating a fatherless child is immoral.  Also, some people who donate sperm inpregnate up to 100 women.  This has resulted in children conceived in that way growing up wondering if the other kids around them and people they date may be their half brothers or half sisters.  (genetic defects, incest, etc.)  They grow up looking at everyone on the street and wondering which one is their father.  Creating children this way is selfish and immoral.  The children suffer because of it.  The fact that it is done intentionally makes the sin even more horrible.  And don’t tell me that homosexuals should adopt.  A homosexual cannot set a moral example for a child or be a role model in how to have a male/female marriage relationship.  Hearing the absurd comment that homosexual relationships are “love” is like slapping the face of God.  Perversion is not love…it is sin.  If you don’t believe that it is sin you should not call yourself a Christian because you aren’t one.

Of course, huge chunks of the christian tradition (stemming from Augustine) think of sin precisely as loving the wrong thing or person in the wrong way.

It’s only the rise of Romanticism that love’s reason becomes seperated from its object such that love (any love) becomes self authenticating.

To santa Fe #52
On pologamy in the Bible.  Just because people in the Bible commit sin, it doesn’t mean that God told them to do it, santioned it, condoned it, promoted it.  David had many wifes and is considered to be someone who followed God…but only because he repented of his sins.  Abraham conceived a child with a maid because his wife could not conceive instead of trusting God.  God did not approve of that and eventually the maid and child were sent away…and Abraham’s wife produced a “miracle child” in her old age and fulfilled God’s promise to make of Abraham a great nation…and he was the father of the Jews.  I am sick and tired of hearing the same old, repulsvie, worn out excuse that somehow “alternative lifestyles” are justified because God forgave and saved people in the Bible who engaged in polygamy against God’s instructions/will.  God gives people free will and if they choose not to follow God or live according to His will…and it is recorded in the Bible…and God is later still able to forgive and use the sinner to do good things…that doesn’t mean that God endorsed, promoted, or approved of polygamy and therefore that excuses homosexual relationships and justifys them.  Sin is sin.

To # 56 Edmon
Thank you Edmon!  Its good to hear from someone who doesn’t take the Bible out of context, twist it, and try to make it say what they want it to say instead of what the author meant when he wrote it…which was the message through the inspiration of God.

#60 Once Blind

Wow…its great to hear someone state the truth!  Amen!

I would have imagined that Our Lord’s teaching on monogamy rather settled the matter. But perhaps I’m just being too “literalist”...

It’s amazing given the traditional priority that the “literal” sense of Scripture has (and of course we need to think properly what that is, in a way that so far in this discussion santafe has not done), that “literalism” could ever be thought to be any sort of criticism.

I don’t actually know what Santafe means by “literalism” nor therefore why it is a criticism. Am I being “literalist” if I think Jesus said and meant that his followers should love their neighbors and even their enemies. Or is “literalism” just wheeled out to mark those things that Jesus (or Paul etc.) said and meant with which one disagrees.

This diocese has said plainly, “Sucks to Jesus of Nazareth and His ascertainable opinions”.

to #66 Sar Hey
You are, of course, aware of the fact that the actor who played Gandalf is a proclaimed homosexual who dispises Christianity and that on the web site celebrating him it is conveyed that a Christian education is presumed to be “child abuse, brain washing, etc.”  And we are supposed to be impressed by anything he says or does?  He and his “followers” are suggesting that it should be illegal to train a child up in a religion instead of “letting them follow their own way and make their own decisions” and that christian schools/education should be made illegal.  Obviously, you who claim to be homosexuals who are posting on this web site are taking the Bible out of context, are misrepresenting yourselves are being sincere about following Bible teaching and being Christians.  Be honest now.  You are here to undermine the Christian religion, not follow it.  It has become VERY clear.

Incest between a parent and child is never consensual in that the power relationship and other things make free consent impossible. The courts agree with me. We also treat incest between siblings the same way, determining that such relationships, even when child bearing is impossible, to be non-consensual.

Folks: My firm’s software license with Lexis-Nexis prevents me from publishing the actual text of the court’s opinion.

Woodward v. Griffith, Hey, et al   Comment 66 Article 19804 SFiF 2009

The resolutions may be found here.

http://www.thediocese.net/Councils/214Council/resolutions_submitted.html#R4

Jesus first miracle was in celebration of a wedding between a man and a woman.  He didn’t suggest that he should marry a couple of lesbians also.  Also, Jesus was not always “inclusive” and if you think so…you have not read the Bible.  If God is so “inclusive” then why is He not allowing unrepentant sinners to go to heaven instead of suffering eternal destruction?  The God of the old testament is the same God in the new testament.  The God that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for their wickedness is the same God who died on the cross for us.  When Jesus stopped the stoning and killing of a woman who committed adultery…he didn’t tell her that what she had done was OK and no big deal.  He told her “Go and sin no more.”  In other words, don’t do it again!  In the current churches the word “progressive” actually means “depraved, leaving the truth for a lie.”  There is nothing “progressive” about perversion….it is as old as the devil himself.  As for comparing homosexual behavior to be the equivalent to eating “unclean meats” or “clams”....well…you don’t know what the difference is between health laws, ceremonial laws, and the ten commandments, etc.  The health laws in the old testament have not been done away with….Jesus did not eat unclean meats nor did he perform miracles so others could eat unclean meats.  He never condemned the health laws.  In the garden of Eden everyone was a vegetarian because there was no death.  When God sent animals to Noah’s ark he sent 7 of every clean animal and 2 of every unclean animal.  That way you couldn’t eat unclean meat without the unclean animal becoming extinct. I try to be vegetarian but when I do eat meat I only eat “clean meat” as described in Leviticus 11.  I do not believe the health laws are no longer valid just like I don’t believe that the ten commandments are no longer valid.  The ceremonial laws (lamb sacrifices) pointed towards the coming of Christ and His dying on the cross.  When that was fulfilled, there was no more need for sacrifices to look forward to it so that was done away with.

As for this comment by cddemaree in #61:
  “I can’t help but wonder how fragile is your own faith and relationship that change of any kind threatens it?” 
Answer:  God never changes.  God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.  Therefore what was sin yesterday is still sin today.  No Christian in their right mind is going to condone any change that declares that sin is not sin.  Nothing is sin because the church says so…its sin because the Word of God says so.

You said, ” Your right and responsibilities in marriage do not change because of this resolution. Your ability to worship as you choose, and believe as you have come to understand through piety, study, and action are not in danger.”

My answer:  This is another untrue statement.  If you look at the state of Massechusettes and the country of Canada you will see that the promotion of gay marriage and honoring gay unions results in the destruction and persecution of churches.  In Massechusettes churches have to pay the police to protect them during some of their conferences because of homosexual violent demonstrations.  And the police don’t protect them…they lock them inside the building and do not stop the violent threats or prevent the people from carrying caskets with threats to christians written on their signs or their stopping traffic.  All children in schools are taught about all manner of perversion and it is “normalized” and promoted and any disagreement is not allowed.  The parents cannot “opt out” of this teaching that is against their religious beliefs so they have to take their children out of public schools.  One man was even arrested and thrown into jail because he demanded that his very young daughter be opted out of the promotion of homosexual, bisexual, transgender, and sex change operation normalization, acceptance and promotion teaching to his child.

In Canada, ministers are being taken to court if they speak out against homosexual conduct and claim that it is sin.  If a photographer refuses to take pictures at a gay marriage because it is against his religious beliefs, a counsel will fine him and demand that he do the pictures for the wedding or they will take him to court repeatedly until he has to file bankruptcy.  They seek to bankrupt anyone who speaks out against homosexual conduct.  If you want to find out how homosexuals in church or homosexual marriage destroys the rights of Christians to live their faith…go to http://www.massresistence.com
You said, “This resolution simply states that the church will no longer tolerate your personal prejudice in regards to who else may worship; and, yes, as they see fit. If and when you are willing to walk the walk with all your brothers and sisters, please know that you too are welcome.”

My reply:  Yes, I am prejudiced against sin and so is God.  God is a forgiving God but is also a holy God, one who will judge and destroy those who do not forsake sin because he will not allow sin to rise again in His heavenly kingdom.  Yes we can say who can and cannot worship in our churches.  Those who have no intention of following the teachings of the church and are there just to disrupt, destroy, and denounce the teachings of the church do not belong there.  If you do not agree with the teachings of the church and cannot respect them…you should go elsewhere where they teach what you want to hear.  The Bible says that in the last days “men will have itching ears and will leave the truth and follow teachers who tell them what they want to hear.”  If you are one of those, so be it.  We will not listen to untruths.  We study and listen to truth…not twist Bible texts and take them out of context to try to make the Bible say what you want to hear.  Wouldn’t it be lovely if we could all just make our favorite sins suddenly not be sinful so we could do as as fleshy bodies desire?  Never mind the negative consequences to that!  Sorry, I’m not about to sit and take it.  I will do just as Jesus did when the money changers and those who sold animals for the sacrifices at the temple polluted the tabernacle with their business.  Jesus threw over their tables and destroyed their belongings.  Then he took a whip and drove them out of the tabernacle.  So much for gentle “inclusive” Jesus.  There is such a thing as “righteous indignation” and we WILL assert it!  Try bringing lies, promotion of sin, and depraved ideologies into my tabernacle and watch me chase you out with a whip!  Only true Christians are my brothers and sisters in Christ…not Satan’s assistants that enter the church as Christ warns they would “as wolves in sheep’s clothing seeking to devour.”  I test leaders to see if what they teach are Bible truths to see if they are “false teachers” or teachers of the truth as Jesus said we should.  And if a church leaves the truth…then I will start my own church and teach the truth.  And I won’t allow UNREPENTANT people who claim that they are homosexuals to enter it and promote the acception and inclusion of sin and claim that sexual sins aren’t really sin and that they have no negative consequences.  I’m really not interested in hearing lies.

Sarah Hey - Incest between a parent and child is never consensual in that the power relationship and other things make free consent impossible. The courts agree with me. We also treat incest between siblings the same way, determining that such relationships, even when child bearing is impossible, to be non-consensual.

Tom Woodward has managed to pack much meaning in just a few sentences. I am in awe.

First, he denies free will. Which presents a weird synergy between here and another favourite blog, the Volokh Conspiracy. Recently David Post wrote a brief essay about why he is a libertarian that discusses the issue of free will.

The Rev. Woodward’s denial of the possibility of free will opens up much insight into his other theology. Without free will, there can be no repentance. Without repentance, there can be no sacrifici alGrace. Therefore, if he is to believe in a loving God, he must believe that Grace is offered to all without regard to repentance, since there are those who can not repent. So no sacrifice of God’s own Son.

Remove free will from the mix and you inevitably wind up as either a non-Christian or as a revisionist (if you are unable or unwilling to follow the logic completely).

It also explains the push for a nanny state. But that’s another story.

Domo arigato, Mr Roboto. Domo.

The Agenda is working it’s way ... I am so thankful that I, my family, and a few Christian friends left TEC last fall and started an Anglican Church Plant in Birmingham. Alabama will not be far behind on this after GenCon 09 I fear.
+Ed
http://www.stjosephtrussville.org

# 59, to read the Scriptures inductively and not superimpose one’s own ideas upon them, one must first carefully read deductively. Paul is speaking to Christians yoked to overt Pagans, not to Christians in Christian communities which have lost their way. Speaking only for myself, applying this proof texting to a denomination such as TEC that has lost its way would be grave hypocrisy and would imply negation of Paul’s efforts to correct the deep errors in his congregations that had lost their way.

Virginia Goes Over the Brink
Good Morning Gene,
If we are to call ourselves Christians, we must go back to his word for answers to all our questions…
Numbers 32:14
“Now behold, you have risen up in your fathers’ place, a brood of sinful men, to add still more to the burning anger of the LORD against Israel.
Matthew 3:7
But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
Matthew 12:34
” You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart.
Matthew 23:33
“You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?
Luke 13:34
” O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, just as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not have it!
Matthew 23:25 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For (A)you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence.
Mark 7:6 And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:’ THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS,BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME
Matthew 23:25 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For (A)you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence.
Mark 7:6 And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:’ THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS,BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME

#39 heronblu,
“I do, I must admit, wonder why those who are no longer part of the American Episcopal Church continue their bruxism over it.”
A little leaven leavens the whole lump. I don’t think one can compartmentalize one’s concerns. I continue to pray for the church catholic which includes TEC.

The scary part is, this resolution pulls the rug out from under those clergy who would oppose performing same-sex marriages on moral grounds.  Since the diocese ,

“affirms the inherent integrity of and blessededness of committed Christian relationships between two adult persons, when those relationships are ‘characterized by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God,’”

clergy cannot object because the diocese has said the relationships are inherently moral. Watch out clergy in VA, compulsive SSBs are coming your way!

What’s so “moral” about same-sex “relationships” when they involve immoral physical sexual acts between persons of the same gender, may I ask?

Well, when they get all pious about dignity in the baptismal covenant watch this:

http://television.aol.com/tvtop5/holy-one-upper-the-daily-show/2394507/BOW

It’s all a big joke, and so are the attendance figures!

#52 writes:  “I believe I am right about my assessment of the growing numbers of people who recognize the godliness of gay and lesbian relationships they have encountered.”

I disagree with you.  What you have witnessed are growing numbers of people—who are bullied by the dreaded threat of being called bigots—into political correctness.  And it is not changing. The natural human revulsion for long taboo behavior might be underground but it has not been eliminated from the species.  Every election on this topic has proved that what people say and what they believe in their hearts are often two different things. 

My connection with the Church of England was through my father, the son of an Englishman.  He was a devout Episcopalian and after he retired he was studying for the priesthood when Alzheimer’s crept up and overtook him.  First he lost him mind and then he began to die, very slowly.  We watched for almost 20 years as every day something else faded from his being until finally he took that last breath and was peaceful.  Watching TEC now is very much like watching him die—painful and sad, and you just want it to be over.

Tom Woodward,

Without a belief in Biblical literalism, the arguments against homosexual relations doesn’t hold up. It’s OK to believe in Biblical literalism—it is just that the Anglican Communion rejected that approach a long, long time ago.

I’d be interested in seeing a study of the development and reception of this word “literalism.”  It seems to me that it is used primarily as a term of opprobrium for persons who don’t share the same style of interpretation.

It is usually used in a context when one wishes to deride another’s style of interpretation, but for whatever reason, does not come to the plate with significant reasons defending one’s own interpretation or even the weakness of the interpretation being attacked.  It has a lot of emotive force, but practically no cognitive content.  No one wants to be a “literalist,” oh heavens no, it’s sort of the hermeneutical version of the ecclesial word “fundamentalist,” or the racial word “nigger” or the sex-orientation word “faggot.”  When I see it used I begin to fear that the one using of this term may have been influenced by the inflammatory, and rather lamentably bad and deceptive rhetoric and scholarship of Spong.  Here I am tempted to engage in Tom’s own rhetoric style imploring him to see the light and no longer embrace hate, but embrace love; to cast all bigotry aside, and take a closer view of the facts when it comes to interpretation in general; to drop the outdated Victorian / Romanticist project in hermeneutics which has caused so much blind hatred etc. etc..

In fact, above I catch myself using another rhetorical trope which is so popular amongst revisionists, which we also should spurn: insinuation - implying that Tom does use such rhetoric, without citing actual examples.

Perhaps I’ll post anyways.  “To stimulate discusssion.”

Ach.  Another nasty rhetorical device, defending offensive, illogical, or otherwise ethically compromised rhetoric on the grounds of its purported promotion of a shared social value.

Perhaps I post because I am concerned about Tom.

Oh no, another bad rhetorical device, couching one’s critical remarks in the language of concern and care for the one being criticized (sometimes actually true, but nonetheless best to avoid).

Seriously, these are, all of them, things to avoid.  Difficult to avoid, yes - but we should take care if we spot them in our texts and ask ourselves if we can’t do without them.  I’ll post anyways, without resorting to them in defense of the bad rhetoric here.  At least I am pointing out my own bad rhetoric.

Tom, do get over this word “literalist,” it makes you sound like a Spongist attack dog without nearly enough substance to back the severity of the charges made - rather much akin to the “fundamentalists” which Spong is always harping on about.  A “fundamentalism” which can be spotted when the vehemence of the attack is utterly disproportionate to the cognitive content and evidence provided.  You are *indeed* much too intelligent to be throwing around flippant words like “literalist.”

And there again, I engage in potentially bad rhetoric - couching criticism in praise, lauding Tom’s intelligence while, on the other side, cutting him down.  Not so bad though, I do recognize Tom’s intelligence, and I hope he knows that here I am being sincere.

I’m posting this nonetheless because we all need to pay more attention to our style of rhetoric in these Anglican wars.  Tom, I catch myself doing this all the time.  And sorry to single you out, Tom, since you are one of the few revisionists here, but you in particular should take more care on this issue, and this word “literalist” really needs to be cognitively better padded out.  I think I, from time to time, * could * profit from your insights - perhaps even a great deal.  You are an intelligent man.  We could learn from you.  But sadly this doesn’t happen very often.  I understand that in your own social circles this word “literalist” is very effective at marginalizing the individual or group targeted by it.  That already speaks volumes to me about the social group to which you belong, its conception of “charity,”  and its likelihood to marginalize a group primarily on the basis of popularity rather than effective reasoning.  Using it here isn’t likely to be so effective as on the HOB/D list - people here, when they see it, are more likely to see this term for what it is, recognize its exclusionary intent, and as likely being part of the group it tends to exclude, not be roused to intended purpose.  One might, for example, effectively support some case in Fred Phelps’s church saying that a certain social policy which one dislikes is supported by faggots.  In an Oasis gathering, however, this probably won’t be so productive.

And again, Tom, apologies for the plank in my own eye.  I also engage bad rhetoric that is simply counter-productive.  As do many here.  May we all strive to improve.  If we do, it will be of immense benefit to the unity of the Church.

I don’t know how many times I am tempted to come back at you with sideswipes like,

“It’s ok to understand this word ‘God’ as a means of collective therapy provided by clerical professionals, employing fragments of sacred texts as inspirational poetry.  Only the Christian community, and the community at large, has never understood Christianity to be such.”

I really don’t want to believe that this is your notion of God, ultimately reducible to a kind of therapy, with no reality or mode of existence outside of this collective therapy.  I wonder if you yourself vascillate between thinking that God is real, and thinking that God is therapy.  Here, in this forum, I think you would be most productive if you spent time articulating your own views.  These short critiques with little grounds do very little, I think, for our understanding of you and your position, or what you purport the position of your church to be, and increasingly lend credibility to the thought that your “God” is nothing other than a word for therapy.  Honestly, I think your church is avoiding the difficult philosophical questions here, and dodging the bullet when it comes to asking what it holds to be true other than producing quite a lot of noise about “there being no easy answers” and your daringly thinking about things which make some uptight people feel “uncomfortable.”  I hear a lot about the thinking and the thought, but the products of this thought ... seem to be held at bay, I hear much talking about thinking, but very little evidence of such thinking.  I see next to no exploration of the assumptions - it’s not about exploring the truth about what you believe, it’s all about trying to show that we should not believe what we believe, without presenting a compelling and coherent case for the truth of what you believe.  This is not just you personally, but seems to be the general culture of TEC leadership.

I would sincerely like to understand you, and your position, better.  Because of your intelligence, position, and willingness to post here, you have a potential that very few do to help the cause of understanding, heal the Anglican wounds, promote understanding of the church to which you belong, and make more likely its future acceptance, and not mere grudging toleration, in the Communion.  You could indeed do a lot of good here.

As an Episcopal Layman I have a few thoughts.  As more conservatives leave TEC more of these types of resolutions are going to be passed.  Soon Priests will be REQUIRED to perform same sex blessings just as Bishops now required to recognize Female Priests.  My second thought is that, after much reading in my Bible I can not find where anyone is condemned to death for mixing fabric or eating shell fish.  It seems as if sodomy, as a categorical sin, commands some special significance.  People claim that they find love and mutual respect etc in homosexual relationships.  I don’t doubt that, for it rains on the just and the unjust.  I would expect to find God’s grace in many unusual places.  It does not mean he is pleased or blessing these situations, it means God is generous and abundant in His love, mercy and grace!  There are many scriptures that can be and are interpreted as condemning homosexuality but I can not find one that supports homosexual relationships in the Bible.  This paucity of support should be a warning sign.

IN 2006, the Times Dispatch reported of a 1994 SSB by clergy from St. Paul’s in downtown Richmond.  AFAIK, nothing was ever done by the diocese.  This trend has been developing de facto for quite a while.  Now it is merely becoming de jure.

“Fly, you fools!”

David Handy+

Pardon my asking Rev. Dr. Handy, but as I recall a previous conversation we had, you remain canonically resident in TEC.  I might point out that one of the things that defines leadership is being the first to take your own advice.  When you have flown, let us know.  I, for one, do not think YOU are Gandalf.  If that honor goes to anyone at the moment, it would be +Keith Ackerman, who is indeed holding a very large stone bridge, alone.

RE: “You are, of course, aware of the fact that the actor who played Gandalf is a proclaimed homosexual . . . “

Um.  You are of course aware of the fact that an author by the name of JRR Tolkien wrote the book The Lord of the Rings, and that the actors who played various parts in the much later movie has little to do with Gandalf’s words from the book, to wit, “Fly, you fools” and in fact, little to do with NRA’s invocation of Gandalf’s words to those of us who remain in TEC.

Or . . . maybe you’re not.

Truly they have their reward.  Can’t wait until GC09 when they’ll be more of the same!

86- Dr. Turner,
That may be the most succinct summation of a 43 page document I have ever read.  Please do let me know if you ever teach a course in “Deciphering the canons and resolutions of the General and Diocesan Conventions of the Episcopal Church.” 
Regards,
TJ

Without a belief in Biblical literalism, the arguments against homosexual relations doesn’t hold up. It’s OK to believe in Biblical literalism—it is just that the Anglican Communion rejected that approach a long, long time ago.

This is a typical Tom Woodward flyby. The statement contains more incoherencies than there are sentences.

First, TBW does not define “literalism.”  Literalism could mean taking a statement in its literal plain meaning.  If so, TBW is simply acknowledging that the Bible, in its literal plain meaning, condemns same sex activity—in which case, TBW is simply saying that it is possible to believe that Scripture condemns homosexual relations only if we read what Scripture actually says.

Once we endorse this definition of “literalism” it gives us an incredible freedom.  We can simply ignore anything in Scripture that we do not want to hear.  Unfortunately, there is a steep price to pay for this move.  A rejection of “literalism” is inherently incoherent because it makes all communication impossible.  Woodward’s statement rejecting literalism is itself a statement that is intended to be taken literally.  The statement that TEC activists love to quote from the baptismal covenant—“respect the dignity of every human being”—is a statement that is intended to be taken literally.

And, of course, there is the doctrine of the creeds.  TBW affirmed recently on StandFirm that Episcopal clergy are required to affirm the doctrines of Nicea and Chalcedon.  Are they?  Does the Presiding Bishop believe “literally” that Jesus Christ is homoousios with the Father, that the the incarnate Word is one divine person and two divine natures?  This is the historic doctrine, but once we reject “literalism,” there is no reason to affirm it.

How far should we go in rejecting literalism?  In his more recent writings, John Spong now believes that rejecting literalism means rejecting belief in a personal deity.  Spong’s position is now indistinguishable from atheism.  Spong claimed in books he wrote decades ago that he could recite the creeds with a clear conscience because he did not take them “literally.”

TBW loves to refer to the citation at the bottom this blog—Matthew 5:43-45.  He apparently believes that this should be taken literally.  TEC activists often refer to the two great commandments—Love God and love neighbor—and claim this as a justification for blessing same sex unions.  But, regardless of whether it really is loving to blessing same sex unions, clearly they think that the command to love the neighbor has some kind of literal meaning.  Presumably they would not be happy if the murderers of Matthew Shepard had justified their actions by claiming that they were not “literalists” about the sixth commandment.

Alternatively, a “literalist” might be someone who did not recognize that the Bible sometimes uses metaphorical and symbolic language.  So, God does not literally have “hands” or other body parts.  Heaven is not up in the sky.  The streets of the new Jerusalem are not literally paved with gold.  Jesus’ parables are not accounts of literal events that actually happened in history.  But if this is the definition of “literalist,” then there have never been literalists in the Christian church.  The very first discussions of biblical exegesis in theologians like Irenaeus and Origen recognize these kinds of distinctions.

My own hunch is that TBW and others who throw around words like “literalist” have no fixed definition of the term.  Like “fundamentalist,” it is just a way to insult those with whom they disagree, and who take the Bible more seriously than they do. The term provides a convenient excuse for using Scripture as they see fit.  In those cases where they like what they read in Scripture, they can affirm its literal meaning.  However, if the literal meaning is inconvenient, they can happily disregard the plain meaning of the text, and claim that they are not “literalists.”

Second, TBW redefines the “Anglican Communion” to mean “those in TEC or those who agree with TEC.”  Lambeth 98 1.10 “reject[s] homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture.”  Even our beloved Archbishop of Canterbury has periodically reminded people that 1.10 continues to be the official position of the Anglican Communion.  So, “if arguments against homosexual relations” are only possible given a “belief in Biblical literalism,” the vast majority of the Anglican Communion are “Biblical literalists.”

Third, TBW redefines Anglican history as whatever took place in the progressivist circles in TEC that he hangs around in since the 1960’s. The position he endorses is not historic Anglican theology at all, but simply a version of the liberal Protestantism that has come to dominate TEC and a few other mainline denominations since Bultmann and Tillich replaced Barth and the Niebuhrs as the dominant theological authorities, and Bultmann and Tillich were in turn replaced by liberation theology and feminism.  Believe me, there is simply no historical or logical connection between Richard Hooker and Carter Heyward. It is not the mainstream position even in the Church of England.  And it has come to dominate TEC only since the late 1980’s.  For example, if one reads the Church Teaching Series of the 1970’s, one is surprised at just how “literalist” it is.  The volume entitled The Christian Moral Vision is quite sympathetic to the civil rights of homosexual people, but is clear that the church “cannot regard homosexuality as a way of life to be approved and commended,” and states that in cases where homosexual orientation is not a matter of choice, “the person’s sexuality is in some way circumscribed, less than fully adequate.”  Way too “literalist” by TBW’s standards.

So, in only two sentences, TBW made three rather egregious errors.  The question this raises is whether TBW is aware that such statements are nonsensical, or whether he deliberately misrepresents.

“You are, of course, aware of the fact that the actor who played Gandalf is a proclaimed homosexual . . . “

Yes, but throughout the entire story, Gandalf remained celebate.

Richard Burton played Thomas Becket, and was not exactly a poster child for moral character throughout his life. My guess is that Ingrid Bergman was not as saintly as the real Joan of Arc. If you removed all the sinners from Hollywood, we wouldn’t have movies.  If you removed all the sinners from a church, it would be empty.

I think I have cited Bill Coats’ piece on the authority of reason, especially as it pertains to experience, in the development of doctrine. That is nothing new to Christian theology and doctrine.

In the sense that it is basically the restating of an old heresy, you’re correct - it is not new.

However, I am a Christian, and an Anglican Christian at that. When it comes to the relationship of Scripture, reason and tradition, I prefer Hooker:

“What Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that first place both of credit and obedience is due; the next whereunto is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of reason; after these the voice of the Church succeedeth.  That which the Church by her ecclesiastical authority shall probably think and define to be true or good, must in congruity of reason over-rule all other inferior judgments whatsoever” ( Laws, Book V, 8:2; Folger Edition 2:39,8-14)

Hooker very clearly places Scripture above all, then reason, then tradition. There is simply no getting around the fact that for you to claim Christian teaching does, or should, approve of homosexual behavior, you have to up-end Hooker. You have to change the order of the things that constitute the church’s authority; specifically, you have to relegate Scripture to no more than co-equal with reason and/or experience. This is why we call you folks revisionists, and this is why we say the crux of this debate is not homosexuality, but the authority of Scripture.

We are the ones who hold to an ancient, traditional belief. You are the ones who are insisting on Something New and Different. I’m fine debating you on the merits of the changes you propose, but I’d prefer if you stopped insulting my intelligence by claiming that what you want to do is neither radical nor revisionist.

I can’t imagine you, as lay or ordained person, responding openly and pastorally to a gay or lesbian couple you would run into—I think they would see you coming and clam up immediately.

Last night I attended a wedding reception for an old friend, at which there were several gay and lesbian couples, many of whom I knew. We hugged, we ate and drank together, we laughed and talked, and hugged again. So if you’re implying that I’m unable to be civil to gay couples, in fact I’m far more than civil… in the right context. In the context of a wedding reception, at which none of them are presuming to come to the Lord’s table as unrepentant sinners, or attempting to change the teachings of my church, I could not be more pleasant company.

But by “responding openly and pastorally to a gay or lesbian couple,” what you mean is to welcome both the people and their sinful behavior into my church, and by statement or implication approve of it. That is not my definition of “responding openly and pastorally,” any more than slapping a raging alcoholic on the back and handing him a pint of whiskey is “responding openly and pastorally.”

So should I see a gay couple walk into my church, holding hands and acting like a heterosexual couple, I will regard it the same as I would a couple of alcoholics walking into my church, clearly drunk and proclaiming that their drunkenness was a good and holy thing.

So if they saw me coming and “clammed up immediately,” then I have - in some small way - done my job. I’ve kept quiet those who would presume to defile my church and my faith by proclaiming the goodness of their sinful behavior.

If, on the other hand, they’d like to talk about how they can be delivered from their sin through the Gospel of Christ, then I have my hugs ready for them.

This may seem off-topic, but I think it is worth pointing out.  VA Dio may be anticipating where Obama wants to take this nation.

I caught the Mike Huckabee show on Fox last night. He had a segment on President Obama’s LGBT agenda that was posted on the official white house website the day he was inaugurated.

It looks like all of the conservative churches are going to have their work cut out for them on the LGBT perversion in the near future. (To see it, you can go to http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/civil_rights or go to http://www.whitehouse.gov, then click on the upper tab titled, The Agenda, then click on the subject, Civil Rights.)

Some of the things on Obama’s agenda are to repeal the marriage defense act and expand LGBT hate crime legislation. Huckabee and his guest said that to repeal the marriage defense act would nullify state rights to define marriage as between one man and one woman. It would make LGBT marriages federal law and rescind existing state legislation.

The hate crime legislation could be used to make it illegal to say homosexuality is wrong. There is already a case of this happening in PA. It could be used to try to make churches marry homosexuals and unable to say homosexual sex is sin. It would effectively take away our freedom of speech.

This is not the change most Americans thought they were voting for when they elected Obama. Obama said he wanted to unite our nation. Between this LBGT agenda and the FOCA agenda, he could easily tear our nation apart.

All I can think is, let’s all get firmly entrenched in conservative churches and be prepared for a rocky road ahead. It looks like all of the conservative American churches may face persecution for being Christians who uphold the bible in the near future.

For the first 300 years of the church believers willingly suffered torture and death rather than renounce their Christian convictions. What was so compelling about the message that caused this level of commitment? And how do we regain this burning desire that eventually conquered the very empire that oppressed them? As Tertullian stated (in so may words): The blood of martyrs is the seed of the church.
The standard of Christ is high and perfect. Lift that standard high and the church will draw others to the salvation of Christ. Set up any other standard and the church becomes a social club. It has always been our choice, and our call.

I don’t often get notices from SF, but I was following Baby Blue’s coverage yesterday, a bit. I could say a number of things which have been said over and over by others who have a horse in this race. By the Grace of God neither I nor my immediate family are, or were ever, members of the Episcopal Church. I am quite sure that there are some readers who believe that now TEC is no longer the Church, part of the Church, or even a Church. To which I would respond that ‘you may very well think that, I couldn’t possibly comment’. (You’d have to be familiar with the BBC series House of Cards to get the reference). Homosexuality and attitudes towards homosexuality are not the only things wrong with the Episcopal Church. That being the case, what else have those embarking towards the New Province brought along, unawares??? Could an argument not be made for putting all former TEC clergy and laity in isolation for a while? They could all stand some detoxification.

certainly it would have been different if the most conservative had not left..and that is the debate in leaving….yet what is the price being paid for staying?

certainly it would have been different if the most conservative had not left

The fault here is not with the laity who have determined that the bishops of TEC no longer represent the Church.  Nor is the fault with the priests or presbyters (as you prefer) who recognized that their duty to Christ and His Church was greater than the fealty they owed their bishop.  The fault is in the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church- specifically with those bishops who abandoned their apostolic duty to uphold the teaching of the Church on matters of faith, and who abandoned the discipline of the Church both by allowing heresy among their fellows, consenting to bishops they knew to be in error and by refusing the discipline of the Communion although the will of the Communion was overwhelming at Lambeth 1998.  There is NOTHING that has happened in TEC within the last 50 years that did not have the consent of 51% of the HoB.

Well, Greg analogy of when people leave on the right side of the pew, handing the ball to the one to there left and as it keeps going at work here. At some point DioVA will be indistinguishable from Newark or EDoW or any other PECUSA dioceses (I would say liberal dioceses but as the process continues that become completely redundant).

Many of the comments above have shown such depth of knowledge about the Bible, church teachings and the Diocese of Virginia that I hesitate even to comment.

Nevertheless, there is another very practical reason that the TEC decline will continue and possibly accelerate. Many of the most orthodox Episcopalians have already left, for various destinations. But two rather large groups remain (plus small groups): Liberal activists, whose agenda is more secular than holy, and the ‘non-political’ folks in the pews, who just want to be comfortable in their own familiar parish. It is this latter group that is beginning to stir and feel uncomfortable, mostly due to news of the many lawsuits, and of the increasing financial difficulties in many parishes.

If TEC were wise, even tactically, they would have ‘cooled’ the gay agenda thing and replaced lawsuits with good-faith negotiation and compromise, while their non-political base still slept. Time, in one sense, might have been on their side.

But now it is too late. The base was beginning to get bewildered, as the news contradicted the TEC trademark: All is Well.” Now they are becoming acutely embarrassed, as that typical, dear 72-year old widow lady realizes she is attending suddenly attending ‘The Gay Church.’ Acute public embarrassment, coupled with a fuzzy (at best) belief system is not a great membership builder, IMHO.

Off they go…to hell in a rather beautiful hand basket.

/#110 -The hate crime legislation could be used to make it illegal to say homosexuality is wrong. There is already a case of this happening in PA.

The case in PA was mentioned on The Huckabee Show on Fox. I’m hoping that the video from that show will be available online sometime next week?

Here is an article that gives a synopsis of the issues on the white house website that are a concern for Christians: http://www.christian.org.uk/news/20090122/president-obamas-white-house-agenda/

#111, JJT - thank you for that sober reminder. The writer of Hebrews reminds the Jewish Christians of his day, “You have not yet resisted to the point of shedding blood in your struggle against sin”.

What is true in so many parts of the world may be coming to a western nation near you. The church has been asleep at the switch - and the voting booth - for too long. Leftist agendites have pretty much taken over the mass media and educational system in the US, and have won the hearts and minds of a majority of this nations youth.

If LGBT ‘tolerance’ is, in fact, forced upon Americas churches [#110 -thanks for the heads up], Christian heads will begin to roll sooner than later.

PB 1928 Loyalist, I’m sorry to answer you here, but I do not know how to find the mail here! Anyway, I believe that these two articles are related to the PA case mentioned on the Huckabee Show. I hope this helps?

Hate Law Speech Law Struck Down
http://morallaw.org/blog/?p=299
Bringing ‘Thought Crime’ to America
http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=9672&department=CFI&categoryid=papers

SjB,

To get to your mail, make sure you’re logged in, then click the “Pvt Msg” button at the top of this page. For more instructions on using the Private Message syste, click here.

Mr. Woodward,

Re; “the mistaken belief that there can be nothing holy or blessed in a committed relationship between two members of the same gender.”

Why stop at two?  Who are you to restrict God doing a new thing?

Your organization, and this diocese, are sick, sex-obsessed groups of people who, on the face of it, are as far from “deny yourself” as east is from west.

#64 robincm,
“I believe that for too long TEC has been willing to sit on the sidelines and ignore the issues of the day when the Church should be called to following the ministry of Jesus in challenging social norms and being outside of the comfortable grip of society.”
Actually, I agree with this statement 100%. Unfortunately society has gone from “pathological” to “alternative” to “blessed” regarding homosexual behavior. Those who are heterosexual who view homosexual behavior as wrong are now homophobic. Is the voice of TEC prophetic or is it simply conveniently falling in line with current social norms in an effort to make the Gospel “relevant”. Good theology is God centered not human centered.
In your same posting you noted to Bo that the creation account was a “combination of myth and truth”. I would be interested in how you would describe the Nicene Creed.  Please correct me if I am wrong but I believe you would say the Nicene Creed is also a combination of myth and truth.

The following is from the Windsor Dialogue Commission Report:
“In exploring the idea of consensus, we have found that the word has two definitions. The first denotes a general agreement on the question presented within a given group or community whose members have the independence to express views on the matter. The second is the adoption by the group or community of an agreed course of action even where there remain substantive differences with respect to the underlying question itself.”
The second definition of consensus is the course being pursued in this case. This is NOT the way the church has operated for the last 2,000 years.  This is the way however that TEC leadership has operated to advance its agenda. This type of “consensus” lends itself to unilateral action by an influential minority.  What this type of consensus ignores however is DUE PROCESS. This circumvention of due process is at the heart of TEC policy and action.  It can be seen with WO, Consecration of V. Gene Robinson, deposition of Bishops and abuse of canon law. Put simply, this type of consensus leads to an abuse of power.

Hi all,—————-In all that you all have addressed there is a question I would like addressed or discussed. If not then what?—what do we do with the Christian homosexual.  Here is my thinking , and I am seeking for answers:
In the beginning God made man. But God said in Gen 2:18 “Then the LORD God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone;’ I will make him a helper fit for him.”

So having God, himself, and creation, itself, was not good enough for the man. It was not good that the man should be alone (note: in spite of the fact that Adam had a relationship with God—this dwelling without an intimate human relationship was not to be pronounced as good). So man has a need for other people. In this case the woman was created for him.

The problem now facing us is what do we do with homosexuals?  Apparently most people have been created with the need for intimacy with another human being. God himself said it was not good that the man should be alone. Most people can find this need fulfilled in marrying a person of the opposite sex. The question that is difficult then is—what about the homosexual? The homosexual has a need for human intimacy. As Christians, many are asking the homosexual to live a life of celibacy. But we know from this passage in Genesis that this is not good. It is not good for a person to be alone.

Can all homosexual Christians choose to live alone? Can all homosexual Christians choose celibacy?  I would say, based on the fact that we were all created for intimacy, that the answer is no.

Can we then ask that homosexual Christians choose to live a heterosexual lifestyle?  I do not believe that this is an option for most homosexuals because a person’s basic sexuality does not and can not be changed (only repressed or perhaps? shifted a little?). It would not only be unfair to the homosexual, but to the heterosexual he marries.  The problem is, we are telling the homosexual to choose celibacy or marriage to the opposite sex as the only two options. Are these really options? How do we, as fellow Christians, want the needs of intimacy for our fellow homosexual believers to be met?

The next question we have to address, then, is do the Biblical passages dealing with the subject of homosexuality address the situation of all homosexuality?  For example, we do not say that all heterosexuality is sin. We do say that prostitution, adultery, cult sex etc is sin. Do the passages that deal with homosexuality address the latter type of homosexuality or/and all homosexuality for all time?

We do know the ideal in the Genesis account is one man and one woman. But since the creation of the first couple many other situations have arisen. What do we do with the homosexual?

The problem now facing us is what do we do with homosexuals?  Apparently most people have been created with the need for intimacy with another human being. God himself said it was not good that the man should be alone. Most people can find this need fulfilled in marrying a person of the opposite sex. The question that is difficult then is—what about the homosexual? The homosexual has a need for human intimacy. As Christians, many are asking the homosexual to live a life of celibacy. But we know from this passage in Genesis that this is not good. It is not good for a person to be alone.

Take another run at it.  What about those of us who are heterosexual but have not yet found anyone willing to marry us?  Why should we be deprived of that intimacy you think all of us deserve?  Since “it is not good for a person to be alone,” can we sinlessly engage the services of a prostitute whenever the mood strikes us?  Because it sounds like you think that we can.

Thinking:  Thank you for the post, and you certainly raise questions that do bear thinking about.  I guess there is similarity to the questions what do we do with the Christian alcoholic (many of whom have alienated all family, spouse, etc.) or drug addict, or the Christian pedophile, Christian adulteror, or any number of folks broken by sin.  We as a church don’t appear to have very good answers for this, although I do believe that some stories of recovering homosexuals have credence, despite the enormously negative and even angry opinions of the gay community.  (At least the ones I have read discussing ex-gay programs.)  The bottom line to me is whether or not the person repents of their sins and is looking for redemption.  Because the redemption is there, but we as a church should be ready to step in as a warm and loving fellowship of redeemed persons.  Given our very individualistic society, issues of pride, privacy, etc., this is certainlly a challenge.

to #107

I was not talking about the movie or the book.  I was talking about quoting a devout homosexual who dispises Christianity.  I would not even read a book or watch a movie that starred someone whose personal convinctions lead them to desire to destroy my religion.  I will not support depravity or a desire to destroy the right to freedom to practice the christian religion.

Hi Christopher (126)—you stated:“can we sinlessly engage the services of a prostitute whenever the mood strikes us?  Because it sounds like you think that we can.”  No, I don’t believe we can do that….You can seek a legitamate relationship. I am asking what do we do or what answers do we give to the homosexual. Do we tell the millions that are homosexuals to be celebate for the rest of their lives. Perhaps so, but I am asking how this relates to the Genesis passage. (seriously, not sarcastically ps forgive any spelling errors!)

TO #109

You are correct.  If you want to see what the effects of Obama’s “civil rights agenda” is…go to website http://www.massresistance.com

130, thank you for posting that link. Some of the photos from the transgendered march are horribly disturbing. How I feel for such wretched souls. And how I shudder when I contemplate whats coming down the pike if such a grotesque public display is deemed acceptable by society at large.

“As it was in the days of Noah…”

But what if you can’t find a proper heterosexual one, #129?  Then what?  You’re still alone.  If we expect heterosexuals to rein in their impulses, than it would seem reasonable to expect the same thing of those struggling against the sin of homosexual activty.  After all, any attempt we make to declare that homosexual sex isn’t really a sin at all can be applied just as well by any other form of sinful sexual expression.  Either that or our “sins” are nothing more than human conventions that can be ignored by anyone.

Regeneration and other “Ex-Gay” ministries stress the importance of small group fellowship and of genuine, non-sexual friendships in order that the emotional needs of someone with same-sex attraction can be met in a legitimate way.

“Not alone” does not equal having sexual activity.  Because sin has entered the world, and all human beings (save Christ) are sinners, all people are called to be celibate some of their lives, and some all of their lives.  The need for emotional closeness can be properly met in a number of settings.  Someone who wishes to be obedient to God come what may can find legitimates ways to enjoy good, satisfying emotional closeness.  I am not saying it is easy, but I am saying it is possible.

thinking:

The problem now facing us is what do we do with homosexuals?

I’m sure you mean well and it is not my intention to pick at you.  But whether you’re a homophobe or a homophile, it isn’t your place to “do” anything about homosexuals.

I’m sorry, but I do get weary of being thought of as a “problem” somebody else needs to solve.

What the Church needs to “do” is uphold and defend Biblical teaching on all matters pertaining to faith and morals, including human sexuality.  That would be lifelong marriage between one man and one woman with no exceptions.

She needs to proclaim the message of the gospel and receive into her fold all those who respond to it, no matter what they’re attracted to or repelled by, ick factors, tendencies, proclivities, orientations, predispositions, and all.  She needs to lovingly enforce the mandates of the gospel and call us to repentance when we fall short.

That’s what she needs to “do” about all of us, and if she does that, the rest will take care of itself.

The answer to what you imagine my dilemma to be can be found in the 19th chapter of St. Matthew’s gospel.  Anyway, that’s where I found it.

I’ve been successfully celibate for 18 years and if you want to pity me for that, go right ahead.  But while the heterosexual Christians do all the heavy lifting, perpetuating the human race (or whatever it is they do) I’m having the time of my life.  Wouldn’t have it any other way.

When I became a Christian, I didn’t give up gay sex because I didn’t like it anymore—far from it.  I gave it up because I knew that’s what God wanted me to do, and because I came to realize that it would be nothing but a hollow mockery for me to claim to love God if I wasn’t also willing to obey Him.  That’s how it works.

Sorry, but the pursuit of chastity is not a white knuckle endurance contest that we undergo while trying to do the impossible.  It can be a challenge, to be sure, but what God Himself calls us to do, He then makes possible.  That’s also how it works, and I haven‘t had a cold shower in years.

I am blessed to belong to a Church where I am not feared, despised, pitied, or patronized, and where no one is trying to figure out what to do with me.  Works for me!

But thanks just the same for your sympathetic interest in my plight.

thinking,

You’ve proceeded from a slew of premises that simply aren’t true. Here are a couple:

As Christians, many are asking the homosexual to live a life of celibacy. But we know from this passage in Genesis that this is not good. It is not good for a person to be alone.

You make numerous references to Genesis, but you neglect to mention the Fall. Homosexual behavior is one of the sins men commit because of the Fall. Therefore, it doesn’t follow that ‘because man was made for intimacy, and because homosexuals are oriented toward the same sex, that same-sex behavior must be fine With God.’ Your middle statement assumes that homosexual orientation and the behavior associated with it are of a pre-Fall, sinless nature. They are not.

Can all homosexual Christians choose to live alone? Can all homosexual Christians choose celibacy?  I would say, based on the fact that we were all created for intimacy, that the answer is no.

Not true in the least. See longtime Stand Firm commenter “episcopalienated.”

Can we then ask that homosexual Christians choose to live a heterosexual lifestyle?  I do not believe that this is an option for most homosexuals because a person’s basic sexuality does not and can not be changed (only repressed or perhaps? shifted a little?).

Certainly there are many stories of homosexuals who have tried to “switch sides” and failed, but to say that the answer to your question is categorically “no” is simply false. See Peter Ould, post=gay cleric, husband, and father of one, and Mario Bergner, post-gay cleric, husband, and father of five. And that’s just a few names from our rather small circle of Anglican friends.

Your question of “what do we do with homosexuals” is clearly begging for the answer, “Let them be free! Free to love the way God intended for them to love!” The problem is that for Christians, it’s simply not true. It’s no more true that homosexuals should be “free” to sleep with whomever they wish, than it is that drunks should be be “free” to continue in their drunkenness, or adulterers should be “free” to continue in their adultery. Plenty of people with impulses toward drunkenness manage to be sober; plenty of people with tendencies toward adultery manage to be faithful; and yes, plenty of people with urges toward the same sex manage to be celibate, or to find those of the opposite sex attractive.

So to debate honestly the question of “what do we do with homosexuals,” you have to first decide whether you want to live as a Christian under the authority of Scripture. If you do, then you have to proceed from the premise that homosexual behavior is a sin. If you want to live as a Christian out from under the authority of Scripture, then that raises the question of whether such a thing is even possible. It certainly settles the question of whether or not you can ever come to a compromise with those who wish to live under the authority of Scripture; the answer is “no.”

episcopalienated,

Thank you for chiming in!

The marriage topic has become hot on so many fronts.  This is a major sign of the destruction of TEC as a Christian Church and it was a slow train coming.

I lived in Virginia from 1981 to 1995 and it was my perception that many if not most of the Anglo-Catholics left just before and during that time period.  Now the Evangelicals are leaving too.

I have written extensively about this issue on other recent threads on this site, so I will not repeat my points except to say that this unraveling is the result of heretical teaching on the marriage sacrament, most people just don’t understand what marriage, sacramental marriage, is these days.

The Articles of religion say there are two sacraments ordained by Our Lord, not that are only two sacraments.  By losing the knowledge of the vocation of the married state, and succumbing to the contraceptive mentality and the acceptance of serial monogamy, i.e. divorce, the stage is set for all kinds of “marriages.”

Please don’t forget our bisexual brothers and sisters who will need at least three people to be really fulfilled in their marriages.

“There is no such thing as the secular, only profanation of the holy.”

Christopher, God provided Eve not just as wife but also as Best Friend. Marriages work best when they are based on strong friendship and strong neighbour-love. We shall not all find spouses, but we may all find friends in Christ, not to mention children, siblings, parents. Marriage as such will not exist in the heavenly life, but all our godly Christian relationships will last, and be glorified, then. May I recommend C.S. Lewis’ The Four Loves in this connection?

The problem now facing us is what do we do with homosexuals?  Apparently most people have been created with the need for intimacy with another human being.

You are equating intimacy with sex.  They are NOT the same thing.

take action, 128, I think you’ve just proven Sarah’s point (post 104)—the quote is not of Ian McKellen; the quote is JRR Tolkein’s.

#139 The Pilgrim,
Robert Sternberg in his triangular theory of love posited Intimacy, Passion and Commitment as the three components of consummate love. He referred to intimacy as the emotional investment in the relationship, passion as the motivational involvement (containing the sexual aspect). and commitment as the cognitive (decision) aspect. He used the term “Companionate love” to refer to relationships that had intimacy and commitment without passion. “Romantic love” had intimacy and passion without commitment and “Fatuous Love” had passion and commitment but no intimacy. It seems to me that Sternberg would understand celibate love as Companionate Love.

Why do they “understand” that, #141?  On what are you basing that assumption?

Hello all from the husband of “thinking”.  We are intrigued by your responses and are indeed thinking and praying about this issue.  As delegates to the 218th convention of the Diocese of South Carolina, we fully expect this issue to arise in some form.  Perhaps not, but we would be surprised if it did not come up in some format.  We are NOT in the liberal camp by any means.  The main point for all orthodox Christians has always been and must always be that Scripture is the final authority for the faith and practice of the church.  With that in mind, I must say there is a very strong linuistic arguement in favor of the traditional position, and it boils down to one word in the Greek, found only in the writings of Saint Paul.  It is the word “arsenokoitai” (I Timothy 1:10).  Those of you who may be familiar with the Greek please feel free to correct me here, but this compound word appears to be linked to the Septuagint translation of Leviticus 18:22 (“You shall not lie with a male as with a female…”)  As far as I know this word occurs no where else in ancient literature, but it certainly appears the apostle took the two words “arseno” (male) and “koitai” (beds) and made a single compound word from them.  No question in my mind he had the Leviticus passage in view.  If that was in fact the case, then there can be no arguement about blessing gay unions.  They are forbidden.  While our attitudes toward our gay and lesbian bretheren certainly have been less than loving at times, we have no choice but to stand on the teaching of scripture.  We lost a gay friend of ours many years ago to suicide.  He was a sincere and devout Christian, and his note indicated he could no longer live with the guilt of his sexuality.  I fear the attitude of the church contributed to that tragedy, and while I have strong Biblical reservations about permitting same-sex unions, I also have strong reservations about the way we minister (or fail to minister) to our gay bretheren.  Please pray for us as we continue to wrestle with this in the Word.

Just a couple observations, or, as my wife says, “You just can’t keep out of it, can you?”  91, it may seem a fine point, but we repent because we receive grace; without it we are unable to repent. 
It may seem like I’m beating a dead horse, here, but here goes:  Woodward, you’re a hack.  I know, I know, you have posted your credentials here before, but in my experience, those who have a need to tell everyone how well educated they are usually have no good argument; they are simply trying to intimidate someone.  I have read most everything you have posted here and on the HoBD listserv, as well as other blogs.(Not yours, I’m not a glutton for punishment.)  My opinion has not changed.  You are a hack. Your arguments are well outside the mainstream of orthodox Christianity no matter how much you protest.  You remind me of some of my contemporaries from the 1960s who are stuck in their youth, and have smoked their brains with whatever recreational pharmaceuticals or herbs they preferred.  You are so full of yourself you suck oxygen out of any attempt at a coherent dialogue. I have to echo a famous blogger who posts here, and reiterate that you are a pompous ass.  I pray that God have mercy on your soul.

Charles [146] thank you for making those pointed remarks, I have been struggling for some time to quell the desire constantly fed by Woodward to soundly thrash his pompous behind in this blog. I was raised by loving parents to be as polite as possible, but under no no circumstances are you to allow a guest to jump up on the table and dance in the hors d’oeuvres. Mess. Woodward seems incessantly fascinated by doing that very thing here, and while it isn’t “my house”, even a fellow guest can assist the hosts in keeping the other guests off the table when judge seems to be greatly impaired.

episcopalienated, thank-you for your witness. It is always magnificent to hear of those who have embraced the grace provided them. Far too often we become so self-identified with roles, labels or causes that we eclipse the fullness of our reality as people created by a loving God for so much more than we can conceive. May the Lord our God continue to enrich your life!

Please pray for us as we continue to wrestle with this in the Word.

I’m sad to say you already are on the wrong track by what I’ve read here. The Word of God is quite clear, just as it was on my heterosexual sin. So why not avoid address the minority sin (affecting ~2% of total population) and ask how do you minister to the one on her third marriage (also against the Word of God) or the vestry member who cheating on his wife or the couple who has no intention of marrying but shacked up or maybe even one who has taken his father’s wife in more liberation than even the pagans.

To #52

If both are adults, there is such a thing as “consentual incest” and in fact incest is legal in some countries that have advocated gay marriage.  But just because someone consents to a sexual act doesn’t mean that its OK to do it.  In fact one reason why it is illegal in this country is because if children are produced it often results in birth defects because of genetics.  Also, to lust after one’s brother or sister is just plain sick and could result in child sexual abuse or harrassment if this was the situation as a minor.  Such conduct is destructive to all parties involved and destroys the foundation of a family.  I’ve even heard that its legal to marry your own father in some countries.  That doesn’t make it right…it makes the country to allows it depraved.

to #42

Jesus did not “develop ethics” and your statement shows a disbelief in the divinity of Jesus Christ.  He is the creator or the world and the creator of ethics from the beginning of time.  He was God in a human body on earth.  And as God, he already had ethics…in fact he came to earth as a human to show us what they were…so he was not influenced by anyone or anything on earth that caused him to develop ethics here.  He taught the religious leaders…the religious leaders did not teach him.

In response to “Husband of Thinking,” yes! Absolutely! Furthermore, we should understand that the concept of “homosexual” was unknown in the Hellenistic world, as far as I can find, outside the Hebrew tradition. For the gentiles, there were only penetraters and penetrated. The former were virile and the latter of either sex were “womanly” and soft, less than fully human because lacking in full logos. As a result, Paul had to employ the hapax legomenon “arsenokoitai” to apply to the penetrating partner in order to express the sinfulness of same-sex eros. In order to make himself especially clear to the Corinthian pagans that all such activity is sinful, Paul pairs"arsenokoitai” with “malakoi” [soft ones] in 1 Corinthians 6:9. Not only the penetrated are manifesting human sinfulness, but also the “manly” penetraters.

I also want to add a special word of thanks for your saying, “I also have strong reservations about the way we minister (or fail to minister) to our gay bretheren.” We are all sinners, and we sin when we think of others as more perverse in God’s eyes than ourselves. I need reminding of that every day.

Mad Potter,

You should read the whole thread before you comment.  Greg Griffith actually called Woodard a pompous ass.  Charles Nightingale was simply echoing the sentiment.  And, I might add, my sentiments as well.

TO #100

I am a “literalist” and a “funddamentalist” and by no means whatsoever is that an insults, a problem, nor does it cause me to not be included.  The way you talk reveals to me that you are no Christian.  First of all, the Bible is not just an intellectual exercise.  You can’t even consider yourself capable of studying the Bible unless you 1)are sincerely seeking God with all your heart 2)come to the Bible with the attitude that you are seeking God’s will for your life and are seeking God’s truth…and are willing to conform to God’s will not try to make God’s word agree with your opinions and desires 3)are not reading the Bible for the purpose of trying to find scriptures that support your preconceived opinions, wishes, desires, agenda, political motives, and desire to be “politically correct” 4)you must study the Bible not with the intention of deciding what it means to you or what you think about it.  You are not there to judge the Bible and declare that you do or don’t agree with what it says.  It is God who judges you, not you who judges God and His word.  You must study the Bible to find out what the author who wrote the text intended to convey.  Therefore you take into consideration the situation, the age and culture it was written in, and compare it with what all other texts in the Bible on that subject says as well. 5) and you must realize that God gave a message to the person who then wrote the message from God in their own words.  You must accept that the Bible is the inspired word of God, not the opinion of men.  You must give it the authority it demands.

If you cannot or will not do these things, you are in no way a Christian.  As far as I can tell, you are interested only in thetoric.  And no revisitionist is a Christian…because as a revisitionist you do not ask that God send the Holy Spirit to reveal His word to you…nor do you read the Bible with the attitude that you are willing to submit your will and life to the will of God as demonstrated in the Bible.  Instead, you approach the Bible with the attitude that you accept what the Bible says when it suites you and you disagree and try to destroy it when it tells you to correct your sinful ways and repent.  You pick and choose what you like and dislike and think that you can stand in judge of God and His word.  You try to declare that the Bible is not the word of God but merely the opinion of religious men…and you denounce anything the Bible says that you don’t like.  You aren’t a Christian.  You are unsaved.  And unless you change, you won’t be in heaven.  It is against my beliefs to study the word of God with people who come to the word of God with your attitude.  It is disrespectful to God and with your attitude you will leave as blind as when you arrived…because your mind and heart is not open to God.  You place your own judgment above God’s.

To #101 Dave B
First of all, I don’t believe that the Bible approves of female priests.  And secondly, no matter what the church officials say, it is YOU that decides if you will listen to God and His will as conveyed in His Holy Word or not.  You cannot ignore God’s will and instructions if the church tells you too.  If the church is wrong, it doesn’t own my soul…or yours.  God does.  If the church is wrong, I do not follow its instruction; I follow God’s instruction as His word tells me to do.  Since you are a priest I have a soft spot in my heart for the position that puts you in…since your position as a priest could be at risk if you do not follow the church’s instructions.  Therefore I sincerely hope and pray that those within your church congregation and elsewhere will seek to oppose any wrong instructions that may be given to you and seek to protect you when you do right according to the word of God.  But more than that…I hope that church members can stop what is happening so you do not end up in the position of having to choose between doing what is right and doing what the TEC or those in authority tell you to do when what they want is wrong.  May God give you strength, wisdom, and His blessing as you seek to stand up for what is right.

Thinking and Husband, (125 ff),
The celibate lifestyle doesn’t exclude intimate relationships. 

It does in fact exclude one and only form of intimacy (sexual relations), but the Christian’s life does not (or should not) have sexual relations as its central focus, not even in marriage.  Don’t let anyone make ‘intimacy’ equal to ‘sex’.

Many of us have intimate relationships were sex never becomes part of it.  The love of family, friends, and church weren’t available to Adam.

In response to 149 (who is called by Hosea 6:6)—you stated, :<So why not avoid address the minority sin (affecting ~2% of total population) and ask how do you minister to the one on her third marriage (also against the Word of God) or the vestry member who cheating on his wife or the couple who has no intention of marrying but shacked up or maybe even one who has taken his father’s wife in more liberation than even the pagans.>
I think the answer to that question is what Jesus says in Matthew 18:12—-“What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go in search of the one that wnet astray?” This is how we are to look at it—all are important, even if the percentage is small.

oops—sorry 149—I deleted your quote.In response to 149 (who is called by Hosea 6:6)—you stated, :” So why not avoid address the minority sin (affecting ~2% of total population) and ask how do you minister to the one on her third marriage (also against the Word of God) or the vestry member who cheating on his wife or the couple who has no intention of marrying but shacked up or maybe even one who has taken his father’s wife in more liberation than even the pagans.”

I think the answer to that question is what Jesus says in Matthew 18:12—-“What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go in search of the one that wnet astray?” This is how we are to look at it—all are important, even if the percentage is small.

Greg,

On your questions:  (1) I’m not a vote counter, but I do think this vindicates the stance taken by the CANA churches from 2003-06, the appeals to Bishop Lee, the attempts at compromise, etc.—while we can always hope and pray for repentance, there is a certain sense in which the crucial decisions as to direction were taken then, and this is merely one more step.  (2,3)  I wonder if you answer your own question.  Why would the issue not come up now, particularly in a General Convention year?

64:  Re your post on the OT laws, I would suggest that the conclusions of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts (as well as the revelation to Peter in (I think) Acts 10 trump the kosher laws you describe.  Crucially, however, chastity is retained from those laws according to the Council’s decision, which I believe (and those present believed) was guided by the Holy Spirit.  So I do not read those laws as applicable except as reaffirmed by the Council—and the sexual standard was, while the prohibition on certain foods (other than blood) was not.  Hope this is helpful.

TO #107
If a person is driving down the road at top speed going the wrong way on a one way road…you are not being loving if you tell him/her “Theres nothing wrong with what you are doing.  Everything is OK, good, blessed.  Keep on going!”  If you love others you would tell them that they are driving way to fast, are driving in the wrong direction, and that it is certain that he/she will hurt himself/herself and/or others or that someone may end up dead.  Its the same thing with sin expecially homosexual acts.  A person that lives a homosexual lifestyle or engages in sexual sins of any kind is not only harming themselves and their families but is harming our entire society.  And not only will they will lose out not and cause harm in this world…but they will end up on losing out on the opportunity to go to heaven.  The Bible demands that we call sin what it is…sin…and warn those who are in danger because of their blindness and sin so that they have the opportunity to repent and seek God and be saved.  When you condone, promote, or ignore sexual sin…you are yourself committing sin…because you are supposed to be the light on a hilltop…and not hide the light under a bushel basket.

Mad Potter (147)
I agree. 

Te Talking Ass actually had good advice for the Ignorant Prophet…(Of course I rather doubt Tom thinks it ever happened)...Something Tom hasn’t yet been able to to provide.

Going after the sinner is very admirable and I’d fully support it. However to declare one’s sin blessed is quite another thing all together. So in your reply (# 158) would be your answer, homosexuality (which throughout Scripture calls sin) is a sheep astray.

Then answer how to deal with the more common heterosexual sinner and the answer to what to do with the other shall be much clearer.

TO #109 Greg
You are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT when you said, “You have to change the order of the things that constitute the church’s authority; specifically, you have to relegate Scripture to no more than co-equal with reason and/or experience. This is why we call you folks revisionists, and this is why we say the crux of this debate is not homosexuality, but the authority of Scripture.” 
PRAISE THE LORD, I LOVE TO HEAR THE TRUTH!!!
If any person presumed to come to the Lord’s table as an unrepentant sinner seeking to deny that sin is sin and for the purpose of attempting to change the teachings of my church, I would get my like minded friends together and escort them outside and tell them that they are not welcome in my church.  And if the priest/minister/church leader didn’t like it, I would seek to do the same to him!  The problem is that the congregation needs to stand up to anyone and everyone they have to including their priests and church leaders if thats what it takes to make sure that anyone that wants to promote sin and disrespect for God and His Holy word in His house of worship is barred from entering…even if it takes a court order to do so.  Jesus threw out the money changers who sold animals for religious sacrifice from His house of worship and chased them out with a whip.  God will not approve of our tolerating disrespect for Him in His house of worship.  This disrupts the ability of true believers to worship and show respect to God.  Not to mention the fact that there is no way on earth that I would agree to allow a practicing homosexual to have any contact whatsoever with any child in my care…or to try to convince a child that their lifestyle is not immoral.  Not only that, at young ages, such things should not even be discussed with children…they should be talked to only at their level of understanding and putting them in a situation where they see and hear things that they should not be aware of yet…is not going to happen.  If the church leaders or priest doesn’t do whats right…I will let them know that they will never see a dime from me or my friends but they will see us picketing our own church!

You said: 
“But by “responding openly and pastorally to a gay or lesbian couple,” what you mean is to welcome both the people and their sinful behavior into my church, and by statement or implication approve of it. That is not my definition of “responding openly and pastorally,” any more than slapping a raging alcoholic on the back and handing him a pint of whiskey is “responding openly and pastorally.”

YOU COULD NOT BE MORE RIGHT!  YOU HIT THAT ONE RIGHT ON THE MARK!

You said:
“So should I see a gay couple walk into my church, holding hands and acting like a heterosexual couple, I will regard it the same as I would a couple of alcoholics walking into my church, clearly drunk and proclaiming that their drunkenness was a good and holy thing.” 
You are right…and we should not tolerate people openly and intentionally commit sin and show that they are unrepentant of it and that they declare that its not sin while in God’s house of worship.  It is disrespectful to God and to those who are there to show reverence and respect to God.
No one can be an effective pastor if they don’t stand up for whats right in God’s house.  In effect, you end up standing for nothing.  If Satan himself walked in flaunting sin and endorsing it, I suppose you would ignore that too. 

AMEN and praise the Lord!

Greg—I want to respond to a few of your statements on 135. You stated:
“You’ve proceeded from a slew of premises that simply aren’t true. Here are a couple:
As Christians, many are asking the homosexual to live a life of celibacy. But we know from this passage in Genesis that this is not good. It is not good for a person to be alone.
You make numerous references to Genesis, but you neglect to mention the Fall. Homosexual behavior is one of the sins men commit because of the Fall. Therefore, it doesn’t follow that ‘because man was made for intimacy, and because homosexuals are oriented toward the same sex, that same-sex behavior must be fine With God.’ Your middle statement assumes that homosexual orientation and the behavior associated with it are of a pre-Fall, sinless nature. They are not.”
Greg, the reason I spoke about Genesis and the creation of man before the fall was simply to show that we had the need for intimacy on the human level even before the Fall. I am not trying to infer that homosexual orientation is of a pre-Fall nature…….just that mankind was created with a need for human intimacy.
Next you referred to this quote from me (sorry, I don’t know how to do the blue stuff!):
Can all homosexual Christians choose to live alone? Can all homosexual Christians choose celibacy?  I would say, based on the fact that we were all created for intimacy, that the answer is no.
Can we then ask that homosexual Christians choose to live a heterosexual lifestyle?  I do not believe that this is an option for most homosexuals because a person’s basic sexuality does not and can not be changed (only repressed or perhaps? shifted a little?).
Greg you then said, “Certainly there are many stories of homosexuals who have tried to “switch sides” and failed, but to say that the answer to your question is categorically “no” is simply false. See Peter Ould, post=gay cleric, husband, and father of one, and Mario Bergner, post-gay cleric, husband, and father of five. And that’s just a few names from our rather small circle of Anglican friends.
Greg, I did not say a categorical NO—-notice that I said “Can ALL homosexuals choose to live alone…..and “I do not believe that this is an option FOR MOST homosexuals……..”  I know some Gays have managed to repress their homosexual urges, and that some have managed marriage. I am just saying that this is not true for most. I am saying , that many homosexuals, like heterosexuals have trouble with this intimacy issue and Paul’s response in I Cor 7:2 was—“But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband” ….further down he says in verse 7 “I wish that all were as I myself am.  But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.” This is problematic for the homosexual. They may not have Paul’s gift of celibacy and they do not have the choice to have their own spouse. I just am trying (and I guess not to clearly) to ask what the solution for the gay person is according to the Bible. I guess it is to live the celibate life even if they do not have the gift for it.

#77. If only God can reveal the truth, how can all these differing faiths claim that they hold the truth and all be correct? They are not bad peple just misled; all of them. And so are you, unfortunately.

I’ve spent my entire 72 years believing in Christianity only to find out at this late stage of life that it is a lot of myths, legends and superstitions that I have been following. And that those who taught me do not themselves believe or follow the teachings they espouse.
I am not truly agnostic in the usual sense of the word. I believe in a Higher Power, but since Jesus never told anybody he was God, why should I believe he is? “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and Him only shalt thou serve.” He was not talking about himself. Was he?

There is a bumper sticker that says something like “I haven’t a problem with God, it’s his followers who alarm me.”  Me too. A greedy KJS grabbing the wealth of churches and trying hard to dig her hand into the pockets of gays who are a fairly affluent group generally. Money! Money! MONEY! She woos them by claming through surrogates that their union is “blessed”, contrary to the long-held teaching of her own church. The Orthodoxes and their fighting in the Holy Sepulchre is another group displaying disgusting behavior. So are the hypocritical, adulterous, fraudulent, money-hungry fundamentalists. Are these people followers of Christ? Who is the Church if not its members? PEOPLE! They are the only visible component in the world.
The early disciples weren’t doing anything other than wishful thinking about Christ’s return, St. Paul especially it seems to me. On the other hand they had to get members so as to survive, so they made up stories. Who knows where they got the doctrine they spouted, which turned into dogma? What happened at Nicea in 485? Why did they discard the books they did? Were those writings less God-inspired? No, organized religion is mad-made and I want no more of it. I will follow the basic teachings of Jesus, lie in bed listening to good classical music on Sunday mornings and try to enjoy the rest of my life without the onerous trappings of anybody’s dogma.
For me, Jesus was a perfect man who tried unsuccessfully to make the world of his time a better place. People made a religion out of his teachings but he lived and died a Jew, not a Christian. I will continue to do good works, help those in need and be thankful for whatever blessings come my way. The rest of you can keep open the doors to empty churches, if you want. Face it, organized religion is quickly dying and it’s about time! Maybe after that we will have a better world—a Paradise, a Utopia, a Nirvana or whatever! 

I rationalized the story of Christ’s birth—maybe it was a unique historical event. His crucifixion in all its gory detail was horrible, but not unique. So many people rationalized the resurection from Mary Magdalene to the guys going to Emmanus even though they were unable to recognize the “risen” Christ. Maybe that to was a one-time historical event. I don’t know, but I do know I want no part of the hypocrites who know everything in the Bible and can quote chapter and verse as long as they themselves do not have to abide by its teachings. KNOW THAT THE PEOPLE WHO SAY THEY ARE cHRISTIANS BELIEVING
Seeing the turmoil in this church stemming from the “people” in the highest places compels me to question my long-held faith. We have the crazy right wing and crazy lefties. What does the sane middle believe.?
I have had to come to the conclusion that denominations like the Unitarians and Jehovah’s witnesses have a firmer grip on the reality of Jesus and his mission and his teachings than either the superorthodox or the ridiculous liberal Christians. More wars (including the two present combats) have been religion based. I say get rid of he whole mess and sing with John Lennon “Imagine…no religion too.” God gave us a beautiful planet and all we’ve done is messed it up. He mad us,gave us the earth and said “You’re on your own.” and then He turned His back.

TO #110
I’ve been yelling about this homosexual agenda since before the California prop 8 to ban gay marriage passed.  Read up on this and protect marriage by going to web site http://www.massresistance.com
At this web site you will see what happened to the state of Massechusetts (spelled?) when gay marriage became legal.  Its exactly what you describe and they are now trying to pass legislation to find you and put you in jail if you speak out against homosexual conduct (they call it hate speech) or call it sin.  The Christians in that state are already being persecuted.  So are the conservative Jews and any other religion that is against the homosexual lifestyle.
I have been putting signs on the front of my garage and in my front yard warning people of what is going to come unless we take action.  Obama is not a christian and his promoting this proves it.  (thorns not good fruit) Unless we unite and demand to have our voices heard…and vote out of office anyone who ignores the will of the people…we will face serious times ahead.  They already have “gay straight alliance clubs” in public schools here and thats the first step in making manditory sex education legal…no opting out…and that sex education will normalize/demand acceptance of homosexuals, transgender, sex change operation, and bi-sexuals lifestyles.  They will try to brain wash our children.  The child I love has been put into private christian school but not everyone can afford to do that or home school their children.  I now understand why the Bible says that homosexuals should be killed in the Old Testament…because they aren’t just intent on making demands on us within the church…they are coming after our children.
Not only that, in the last year or two there have been 2 female teachers who had sex and made babies with 13 year old boys.  Lately a soccer couch was convicted of getting an underage girl drunk and having sex acts with her.  Another male teacher was arrested for trying to contact underage girls online for the purpose of meeting them for sex.  And a male teacher was arrested for having sex with a 12 year old boy for two years.  The lack of morality of public school teachers is obvious when they endorsed opposition to prop 8 and wanted to show support for gay marriage.  I am opposed to someone other than myself teaching my child about sex and promoting things that are against my religious beliefs.  But even if I approved of the curriculm I wouldn’t trust the teachers with discussing the subject of sex with children since so many of them seem to be sexually abusing children!  I certainly wouldn’t dream of trusting a public school teacher with the well being of my child!  I would never want my child to be alone with a teacher either.  If Obama’s legislation is passed, it will be legal for the schools to provide your first grade child with a teacher who is transexual, dresses like a woman and shows off his breast implants, and discusses and promotes his lifestyle to your children.  And you won’t be able to protest or opt out.  Maybe you can pull your child out of public school and send them to christian school or home school them.  But if the “gay agenda” that I have read on the internet is promoted…they will try to call christian education “child abuse, brain washing” and ban it or demand that christian schools hire those not of their faith.  I’d say by what I’ve seen that the end times are near.

TO #112

All church leaders who didn’t stand up for whats right and oppose acceptance of homosexual conduct and demand that it be called sin and be repented of should be fired!  They are not fit to lead anyone.  Leaders should be held to a higher standard than those they serve.

TO #120

Thank you and all the others who have been so generous as to supply me with additional web sites to read regarding the arising threats to our religious liberty.
Be strong in the Lord and bless you.

2. Why Virginia, and why now? One expects this sort of thing from more liberal dioceses, but Virginia has now leaped ahead of a score of other dioceses that are significantly more liberal. What explains this lurch to the left for the Episcopal Church’s signature diocese?

The most conservative parishes left the diocese for CANA. Why would anyone not expect this to consolidate the power of revisionists in the diocese?

#166 Gloria,
“I am not truly agnostic in the usual sense of the word”
No, Gloria you are not agnostic.
“God gave us a beautiful planet and all we’ve done is messed it up. He mad us,gave us the earth and said “You’re on your own”
You are a Deist.
I will pray that you regain the will to believe in Christ. The passages in Scripture support that He is God beginning with the Prologue to the Gospel of St. John.  Jesus refers to Himself five times as “I AM” also in John’s Gospel. Thomas (and I) call out to Christ, “My Lord and my God. There is no other name whereby we may be saved.
Blessings from a fellow senior citizen.

RE: “I was not talking about the movie or the book.  I was talking about quoting a devout homosexual who dispises Christianity.  I would not even read a book or watch a movie that starred someone whose personal convinctions lead them to desire to destroy my religion.  I will not support depravity or a desire to destroy the right to freedom to practice the christian religion.”

Take Action—you are demonstrating incredible ignorance in your comments about both the book and the movie. 

1) The book was written by a conservative Christian in the years between 1937 and 1949—it was called The Lord of the Rings.  The writer—JRR Tolkien—was not a devout homosexual.  Nor was he a person who “dispises [sic] Christianity.”

2) In the excellent book—written between 1937 and 1949—there is a character named Gandalf.  In his desire to warn those of his fellowship in one particular section of that book of their dire peril he utters—before plunging into an abyss—“fly you fools” to his comrades.  The character in the book—Gandalf—was not a devout homosexual.  Nor was he a person who “dispises [sic] Christianity.”

3) In the year 2001 the excellent book—remember, written between the years 1937 and 1949—was made into a movie.  In that movie the character of Gandalf was played by an actor who in real life was “a devout homosexual” and yes, despises Christianity.

4) In the above thread of this blog, StandFirm, in the year 2009, there is a commenter named New Reformation Advocate.  He quoted a line from The Lord of the Rings [the book, written between 1937 and 1949], uttered by the character called Gandalf—again of this same book, written between 1937 and 1949—and the comment was “Fly you fools.” 

You then—despite attempts to point out your errors regarding book, movie, character, author, etc, etc,—began spouting what can only be characterized as errant and buffoonish nonsense.

All of the above points brings me to a final depressing reality.  You have commented some 18 times on this thread.  At least two of those comments demonstrate a lack of basic knowledge—indeed, rationality—and an inability to track or respond to reasonable responses or facts.

Do you think that, as a Christian, it is honoring to God to repeatedly demonstrate a contempt for basic facts and reason as you have done regarding something so simple as who wrote a book and who said what in the book and who is gay and who despises Christianity?

Just as serious, do you think that non-believers—recognizing your contempt for basic facts and reason as you have done regarding something so simple as who wrote a book and who said what and who was or was not gay—will respect other comments and assertions of yours about other far more serious matters when you demonstrate so little regard for accuracy in your comments about smaller matters?

TO #125
Seems like you desire to take Bible text out of context with the rest of the Bible.  The apostle Paul in the new testament recommends remaining single and entering marriage only if you feel unduly compelled by your sexual desires.  This was because at that time in history Christians were being persecuted and many were killed.  It was not a good time to have to worry about a wife or children and providing for them.  Jesus himself never married…and he is our example.  True, he did not live on this earth into old age.

But since when do we put sexual activity and physical intimacy as the number one thing in our lives?  There are other types of intimacy and relationships that do not require sexual contact but may include limited physical contact.  Even within a marriage, intimacy on many levels is required in order to have a good sex life or marriage.  A relationship with family and best friends is an intimate relationship…although not a sexual or basically physical one.

I would suggest that widows/widowers, those who are to young to marry, spouses who cannot have sex because of health problems, etc. may still find life fulfilling even in less than perfect situations.

You said, “Can we then ask that homosexual Christians choose to live a heterosexual lifestyle?  I do not believe that this is an option for most homosexuals because a person’s basic sexuality does not and can not be changed (only repressed or perhaps? shifted a little?).”

Obviously you have fallen hook, line, and sinker for all the lies that the homosexual community promote and your comment is one of them.  First of all, God does not condone much less create sin.  Therefore God does not create “homosexuals.”  God creates people to be heterosexual but by the perversion of their minds and choices they choose to commit homosexual acts.  God made our bodies in such a way that they are perfect for heterosexual sex.  There is no such thing as a homosexual body.  God does not create homosexual bodies.  The fact that someone is tempted to have sex with the same sex doesn’t mean that they are homosexual.  Homosexual sex is not a state of being but a sexual act…a choice.  The fact is that some people marry, produce children, and then claim that they are “gay” and abandon their families.  It is quite clear that they are capable of having sex with the opposite sex…they just CHOOSE not too.  Also, there is a case where two lesbians become a couple…then one of the women had a sex change operation..and her partner stayed with her even though she tries to appear to be a man…and the partner said it didn’t matter what sex she was just who she was.  So “homosexuals” claims that they can’t change and they can’t help it and are only attracted to the same sex is a bold faced lie.  They prove the opposite very many times.

There is a lot more wrong with people who claim to be homosexual than just who they choose to have sex with.  They have become depraved…their whole thinking is wrong.  And only God can change that. God would not ask us to do the impossible.  And it is possible to live a without sex or have heterosexual sex in a moral, holy relationship that God approves of.  God has said that if He asks us to do something (including sacrifice) He will give us the power to do it.

TO #109
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
President John Adams

thinking,

To answer your questions in [165]:

I just am trying (and I guess not to clearly) to ask what the solution for the gay person is according to the Bible. I guess it is to live the celibate life even if they do not have the gift for it.

We are graced by the participation here of a commenter who goes by the name “episcopalienated.” His story, along with the stories of Peter Ould and Mario Bergner and, yes, Gene Robinson, when taken together provide a lot of food for thought about the nature of sexual attraction and its place in Christian morality. That may seem like a laughably obvious statement, and perhaps it is, but let me explain what I mean.

Peter and Mario have changed both their apparent orientation and their behavior, from homosexual to heterosexual.

Gene Robinson has also changed his apparent orientation and his behavior, from heterosexual to homosexual. Most of the leading figures in the gay activists movement in the Episcopal Church have made the same changes in apparent orientation and behavior - from heterosexual to homosexual.

Episcopalienated has not changed his apparent orientation at all, but has changed his behavior.

There can be little doubt that all of these changes are real.

Gays can say what they will about Peter Ould and Mario Bergner, but they can’t say that their conversions aren’t genuine.

We can say what we will about Gene Robinson’s theology, or his neurotic need for publicity, but I don’t think anyone here can say that his change from heterosexual to homosexual isn’t genuine.

Obviously without knowing episcopalienated personally, no one can vouch for his unchanged orientation and his celibate lifestyle, but I don’t think anyone who has read his postings here over the last couple of years is about to make the charge that he isn’t being honest about it.

My point is this:

It seems to me that most heterosexuals, when they first enter this debate, take it as a given that people are “born gay.” But all it takes is learning about the transformations of people like Ould, Bergner and Robinson to understand that sexual attraction is not like having dark skin or blue eyes. It is definitely capable of changing, and if you spend enough time listening to gays’ stories (ha! They think I’m not listening, but I am!), you find that a very large percentage of them - perhaps a little less than half, perhaps a little more, but in any event a very large percentage of them) tell stories about being attracted to the opposite sex as adolescents and young adults, and then going through a change.

But these are the same people who claim that homosexuals are “born that way” - that sexual attraction is something that never changes.

So the fundamental claim - the unchanging nature of sexual attraction - by people whose sexual attractions have changed, is simply incoherent. Now, I understand that “being born gay” may for some people involve actually being born straight, and only after a certain time going through a transition, just as people who are genetically destined to suffer from this disorder or that go through some years of good health before the disorder manifests itself.

HOWEVER - no compelling evidence has yet been offered that there is such a thing as a genetic predisposition to homosexuality. So we have to ask some tough questions about the nature of sexual attraction and “orientation,” for example:

- Is bisexuality indeed a third category of orientation, distinct from the other two? How often must one engage in sexual activity with both sexes to be considered “bisexual”? And how much time must elapse between these episodes before one is NOT considered bisexual? For instance, why is one person who goes years between sexual encounters with partners of the same sex considered bisexual, but the person who “experimented” for a summer between their freshman and sophomore years not considered bisexual?

- Why do gay activists tell us out of one side of their mouth that sexual attraction is fixed, and it’s useless to try and change it, then out of the other side of their mouth explain bisexuality as a result of sexual orientation being fluid, ever-changing, and sometimes hard-to-define?

- Why also do gay activists rejoice in the transition of someone from “straight” to “gay,” and characterize it as the person finally “finding his true self,” but they set upon people such as Ould and Bergner, who make a transition in the opposite direction, impugning their motives and calling them the vilest of names? If sexual orientation is “fluid,” then doesn’t it stand to reason that it’s fluid in both directions, not just one?

This is why I reject the notion that homosexual attraction rises to the level of having black skin, or being a male vs. being a female. The latter clearly fall into the category of what one is, while the former seems - fairly often - to fall into the category of what one does. If one is “gay” in the sense that one is “black,” then the conclusion is inescapable that one was born gay, and one cannot be anything but gay at no time in one’s life. But as we’ve seen, many people who used to describe themselves as “gay” were once most certainly attracted to the opposite sex; and many who now describe themselves as “straight” were once most certainly attracted to the same sex.

Taking it back to the genetic argument, one would assume that if being gay were a condition of being on the order of skin color or gender, then it’s reasonable to assume that geneticists would have discovered at least something pointing to this fact, given the state of genetic science and the immense monetary gain to be had from unlocking such secrets of sexual attraction. They have not.

But all of this is to come back to the point in my previous post about the question of what is sin and what Christians are to do about it:

Let’s say that scientists tomorrow discovered a gene that causes certain people to be unfaithful to their spouses. Would that be reason to change Christian teaching on marital fidelity and the sin of adultery?

What if scientists tomorrow discovered a gene that causes certain people to drink to wretched excess all the time, or to steal at every opportunity. Would that be reason to change Christian teaching on the sins of drunkenness and thievery?

The answer to all of these questions has to be “no,” because it doesn’t matter whether the cause of our sinful behavior is linked to genetics or not… we are all fallen; we are all sinful. What’s more, we cannot help it. This is the way we were born.

So back to your original question of “what are we to do with homosexuals,” or what I would suggest is a better phrasing, “What are homosexuals to do about themselves?”, the answer is the same as “What are alcoholics to do about themselves?” The same as “What are compulsive adulterers to do about themselves?” and “What are compulsive thieves to do about themselves?” They are, if they are Christians, to strive to lead faithful lives, to try and avoid sinful behavior; not to celebrate it and certainly not to insist that the church change its teachings to accommodate them, on the flimsy case that they were “born that way.”

TO #159 Johng
Now explain to me why I should take the word of some “council” over the word of God? There is no council in Acts 10 so you must mean church leaders.  I have stidoed this text before and it is my belief that you have not understood it correctly.  For one thing, the Bible never contradicts itself when understood correctly.  God does not declare some meats to be “unclean” in one text in the old testament and then say in the new testament that he changed his mind.  With God, what is right is always right and what is wrong is always wrong.  (what is moral or sinful never changes and God never changes)  It is to late tonight and I am to tired for me to go into a lengthy explanation at this time….maybe next Wednesday or Thursday.  You can’t “trumpt” one text over another…the Bible is a cohesive whole…all written through the inspiration of the same God…although by many people.  Also, Leviticus is a direct order from God.  Acts 10 is a symbolic dream.  There is a vast difference in how literal one is compared to the other.  In the Bible most things are literal but there is also prophecy, parables, etc. that are demonstrations of truth or symbols and are not to be taken literally.  Such is the case here.

How’s this for a ‘literalistic’ reading of the sheet dream:

The Animals in it weren’t ‘unclean’ in the Law as Given, but rather ‘Unclean’ in the Pharisee traditions.  It wasn’t God making ‘Clean’ what had been ‘unclean’ (The Real Restrictions remained in place for the Jews.  This is different for Jews and Gentiels - Remember the restrictions placed on Noah are what the Church Council at Jerusalem went with, not those placed on the Jews.

TO #172 Sarah Hey

You said:
1) The book was written by a conservative Christian in the years between 1937 and 1949—it was called The Lord of the Rings.  The writer—JRR Tolkien—was not a devout homosexual.  Nor was he a person who “dispises [sic] Christianity.”

My reply:  I have never fully read this book but did read a bit of it many, many years ago.  My friend was a big Tolkien fan but I found it uninteresting and kinda dumb and never even finished the book.

You said:
“2) In the excellent book—written between 1937 and 1949—there is a character named Gandalf.  In his desire to warn those of his fellowship in one particular section of that book of their dire peril he utters—before plunging into an abyss—“fly you fools” to his comrades.  The character in the book—Gandalf—was not a devout homosexual.  Nor was he a person who “dispises [sic] Christianity.”

My reply:
I have never heard of or read this book.  In fact, I tend to dispise fiction and prefer instead to read the Bible, religious books, books on nutrition/health and illness/weight lifting and exercise/medical research/history/current political events and things like that.

There is no reason for you to be so rude or to assume that I have heard of much less read or watched all of the things that are in your post.  In fact, since this is supposed to be a religious site I don’t see why fiction should be a part of it at all…much less taken as seriously as you seem to take it.  As for this site being “competent”...vitually all of the emails sent to me by this site which claim that they are replies to what I wrote in fact are replies to someone other than myself.  So I would imagine that a large number of people or the “host” of this site doesn’t know what they are doing…but I am not being nasty to people on this site because their replies that were emailed to me by this site are not replies to my postings.  Seems like I am a very reasonable person to me. 
You said:
“3) In the year 2001 the excellent book—remember, written between the years 1937 and 1949—was made into a movie.  In that movie the character of Gandalf was played by an actor who in real life was “a devout homosexual” and yes, despises Christianity.”

My reply:
Now that is what I was talking about…that is the movie…I think it came out about a year or more ago.  Gee…you seem to think that movies are sooooooo important that I should remember this stuff from so long ago?  Hey, I have a life.  Therefore I have a lot more important things on my mind than some dumb movie.

4) In the above thread of this blog, StandFirm, in the year 2009, there is a commenter named New Reformation Advocate.  He quoted a line from The Lord of the Rings [the book, written between 1937 and 1949], uttered by the character called Gandalf—again of this same book, written between 1937 and 1949—and the comment was “Fly you fools.”

TO #177 Bo

You are incorrect.

. . . This resolution simply states that the church will no longer tolerate your personal prejudice in regards to who else may worship; and, yes, as they see fit. If and when you are willing to walk the walk with all your brothers and sisters, please know that you too are welcome.

1 Corinthians is often held up as justification for this prejudice, but there is a stark contrast between the sections on sexual immorality and those on spiritual gifts and love. How should we solve this dichotomy? Should we pick those passages we prefer to be of greater import, or should we follow the example of Christ; always favoring inclusion and reaching out to those society has deemed flawed, sinful, and unworthy? Paul tells us quite clearly the order of faith, hope and love: the greatest of these is love. . .
Who is being persecuted here? The orthodox who wish to impose their beliefs and biases on others, or the few who are simply asking for inclusion and opportunity?

What a revision of the facts.  No one has refused for those not only openly, but also proudly living in sin.  It is simply those who are trying to keep the faith as received saying, “Come, worship with us; but if you cannot give up your sin, please do not ask to be leaders.”  Love does not include encouraging people to subject themselves to the danger in which they place their health because they are living in an unhealthy manner.  Would you call it love to send your children out to play in traffic, simply in the event they might not be hurt.  That is exactly what you are doing when you encourage others to live in unhealthy sexual relationships.  That is certainly a very sick idea of love.  Christ loved us enough to die for us; but he also tells us to “go and sin no more.”  People who do not want you to die from unhealthy behavior are not prejudiced.  AS far as persecution, it is those who are trying to keep the faith that are being persecuted by the use of threats and lawsuits and perversion of the canons of the church - are you going to pretend that is holy, also? “you, too, are welcome?????”  And you say that it is we who would be obedient to the Holy Word of God are NOT welcome as long as we insist on obedience?  THAT is NOT persecution???  What is this sick obsession with sex anyway?

thinking and heronblu:

These are the facts about the ἀρσεvoκoίτης. It is a noun unattested outside our two New Testament passages, the Fathers, who show a couple of cognates to it (as you might expect in those who read the New Testament in Greek), and the Tenth Century compilation known as the Greek Anthology. It is a masculine noun in -ης, -oυ. The suffix makes it an ‘activity’ kind of formation, of which the paradigm is πoιήτης, i.e. “one who goes in for creating”. Nouns formed with this particular suffix were proliferating in the First Century. The τ has no connection with κoίτη “bed” except the coincidental one of a derivation from κεῖμαι “I lie”. It is a compound, and compounds need especially careful handling; with them the grammatical relation of the parts must be sorted out before one can see daylight. Etymologizing gets one only so far, sometimes very little way. The word cannot mean “man in a bed”. It is an objective compound, of which one part must be a verbal noun, grammatically equivalent to a verb. It is parallel in form to παιδεράστης. It might be construed either as “one who (-ης, the suffix) lies (κoίτα-, from κεῖμαι, a verbal) with men (ἀρσεvo-, a noun)”, or else as an objective compound but with ἀρσεvo- used verbally and κoίτα- substantivally, giving us “one who takes the male part in lying”. The practical difference is slight to nil; but what on earth does it mean? The sense is not so much innocuous as vacuous, unless we say that the preceding μαλακoί desiderates something. It would help if κεῖμαι ever had a coital connotation; but it does not, even in the Fathers.

That it does not is a subtle linguistic point on which modern scholarship appears to be completely silent. The fact is that κεῖμαι tout court no more suggests genital relations than do English expressions such as “lie”, “sleep”, “go to bed”, “spend the night” tout court (unless we count “lay” and “get laid”!). So wide is its range of other meanings, literal and figurative, that unless the verb and any derivatives are prefixed with such obvious semantic pointers as συv- and ὁμo- the suggestion is unlikely to occur to the mind at all. The coital sense is no more than a faint implication even in such words as ἀκoίτης, ἄκoιτις and παρακoίτης, which all mean “spouse”. It is poignantly absent from μovoκoιτέω [Ar. Lysistrata 592] and παγκoίτας [Soph. Antigone 804, 811]. Apart from the necessarily obscure μητρoκoίτης in a fragment attributed to the poet Hipponax (Sixth Century B.C.) the root is innocent of such a sense. So is the verb κoιτέω “I go to bed”. Where then did it come from? And why from the First Century on do we find in Jewish or Christian sources a proliferation of cognates and derivatives which are heavy with it? If this can be unravelled we can, I believe, sharpen considerably the reference of ἀρσεvoκoίτης. This will be so whether or not we are persuaded that all the Greek Fathers who seem to know the term understood the precise nuance of both μαλακός and ἀρσεvoκoίτης juxtaposed in I Corinthians 6.

So, then, we have an obscure compound masculine noun, which in the present state of knowledge might well be taken as a coinage. This is the simplest explanation. The word is much illuminated when we look at the Septuagint of the Leviticus texts: καὶ μετὰ ἄρσεvoς oὐ κoιμηθήσῃ κoίτηv γυvαικός (18:22); καὶ ὅς ἄv κoιμηθῇ μετὰ ἄρσεvoς κoίτηv γυvαικός... (20:13). This is about male penetration of a male. κoίτηv is Hebraizing, but perhaps it was felt to be as good as an internal cognate accusative with κoιμάoμαι, a verb standard for coitus from Homer on. We have exactly this construction in the Massoretic text, i.e. שׁכב verb-forms governing משׁכבי “intercourse with”. Probably, then, the compound, whether chosen or coined in I Corinthians, is intended to evoke the Holiness Code with its emphasis on male penetration of the male. Actually as a biblical Hellenist and Hebraist I should put it more strongly: in the absence of earlier attestation, and in view of the un-Greek semantic twist in the word, a deliberate, conscious back-reference by the Apostle is as certain as philology can make it. (He may or may not have known that he was dropping into translationese.) To be blunt, his coined compound noun means “A man who penetrates males”. He is careful to make the ‘male’ same-sex practitioner as culpable as the ‘female’: the pagan world was not so clear as the Jewish that the penetrating partner wasn’t right to take all he could get, so that the order may well be significant. If it is, Paul is saying, “and the sodomite too, in case you thought that he was an exception”. Fascinatingly, by avoiding the available technical term παιδεράστης, he sees to it that ‘loving, consensual, adult relations’ are fully covered.

Gagnon unfortunately had not looked hard enough at the grammar of Greek compound nouns of this type when he wrote, referring to my article in CSR, June 1997, that I had the etymology wrong. ‘Male’ and ‘bed’ is not right, but a folk-etymology.

The games people play!
“He said, she said” has become “you said, I said”
Sounds like a bad marriage…..

Take Action (#178)

There is no reason for you to be so rude or to assume that I have heard of much less read or watched all of the things that are in your post.  In fact, since this is supposed to be a religious site I don’t see why fiction should be a part of it at all…much less taken as seriously as you seem to take it.  As for this site being “competent”...vitually all of the emails sent to me by this site which claim that they are replies to what I wrote in fact are replies to someone other than myself.  So I would imagine that a large number of people or the “host” of this site doesn’t know what they are doing…but I am not being nasty to people on this site because their replies that were emailed to me by this site are not replies to my postings.  Seems like I am a very reasonable person to me.

A few things from a largely ignored member of the Peanut Gallery here on StandFirm:

i)  Trust me, you really don’t want to get into any sort of verbal jousting contest with Sarah Hey.  If you disagree with her, go ahead and express your disagreement tactfully and rationally, then back off slowly. 

ii)  You really, really don’t want to tick off any of the moderators, especially because it’s difficult to do. 

iii)  RE:  “In fact, since this is supposed to be a religious site I don’t see why fiction should be a part of it at all.” 

First part first:

Actually, this is not so much a “religious site,” as it is a site run by people who are devout Anglicans.  Many people “get” this distinction, but a surprising number of people .. do not.  Many of the people who “get it” are still with us and many of the people who “don’t get it” are not. 

Oh - and SF isn’t exactly run as a typical web forum, for two reasons:  Commenters are not privileged to start threads, and they can (and have been) removed fairly quickly if they get too rude, too annoying, or too off-topic.  That’s the way it works, here. 

iv)  RE:  “I don’t see why fiction should be a part of it at all.”

Second part, second:  Sometimes it’s used to compliment the discussions - LOTR in particular is chock-full of analogy fodder.  As for fiction in general, I love it but don’t have the time for it anymore as I did in college.  However, you’ve mentioned interests of your own (weight lifting, e.g.,).  Surely you’re not suggesting that your own interests are more important than what interests a SF moderator? 

v)  RE:  “As for this site being “competent”...vitually all of the emails sent to me by this site which claim that they are replies to what I wrote in fact are replies to someone other than myself.”

Yikes.  Um, that’s an automatic feature of the website. 

vi)  RE:  “Seems like I am a very reasonable person to me.” 

..if you do say so yourself, right? 

Wow, there are a lot of replies here and I am reading backwards from the bottom so it may take me a while.

However I did want to address take action regarding the way the system of receiving replies works.  When you post a reply the default is that you receive ALL the following replies in that topic, not just the ones that address YOUR post.  If you want to opt out of receiving the replies you can do that either at the time of your posting by unchecking the box that says “Notify me of follow-up comments” or by clicking a link on the email you receive with each reply.  There is not a way to get ONLY the replies to your specific comments.  I hope this information is helpful.

Yes, sometimes this system gives you a lot of emails you (may or) may not be interested in, but you can always stop them easily enough.

Well, I guess Moot types a lot faster than I do.   I did not see #183 before I posted #184.  Probably Moot provided take action with a better explanation than I about threads and such.

RE: “I have never heard of or read this book.”

Yes, we can tell.  You were just spouting off about something you knew absolutely nothing about, just to hear yourself talk.

RE: “There is no reason for you to . . . assume that I have heard of much less read or watched all of the things that are in your post. “

Right—you just commented with utter ignorance, in order to comment.

RE: “In fact, since this is supposed to be a religious site I don’t see why fiction should be a part of it at all . . . “

Heh—then you’ve come to the wrong place, Take Action.  At this site, we value as gifts from God to human beings art, literature, sports, history, beauty, nature, and much much much more.  We believe that the arts are a demonstration of human beings acting in the image of God—it is His will for our lives to create beauty and truth, through a variety of means, including works of fiction.  Those who believe otherwise are not only opposing the will of God for human beings, they will have a long hard time on this site.

I believe we’ve answered my two questions to you above:

“Do you think that, as a Christian, it is honoring to God to repeatedly demonstrate a contempt for basic facts and reason as you have done regarding something so simple as who wrote a book and who said what in the book and who is gay and who despises Christianity?”

No—you don’t.  And besides—you just need to hear yourself blather and opine about things you know nothing about.  After all—you deserve to be able to speak.

“Just as serious, do you think that non-believers—recognizing your contempt for basic facts and reason as you have done regarding something so simple as who wrote a book and who said what and who was or was not gay—will respect other comments and assertions of yours about other far more serious matters when you demonstrate so little regard for accuracy in your comments about smaller matters?”

No—they certainly will not respect your thoughts and opinions because of your contempt for basic facts, and logic, and well-reasoned arguments and they won’t care what you say or think.  Other Christians will be the same.

But it won’t matter. 

You’ll get to hear yourself talk.  And that’s what’s important, after all.

On another note . . .  welcome to this site.  We are glad you are here.  It has not been an auspicious start—but we’re glad you’re reading here. 

This blog is a wonderful community.  If you stick around long enough, you may make some friends.

Although much of the dialogue here helps clarify the reason why the two sides of the debate are irreconcilible, it isn’t ever going to be “productive” in the sense of resolution.  Sometimes the conversation needs to end, and I pray it does.  I’m tired of Tom Woodward and all the rest who are false teachers.  I’m tired of the pew sitters who have no idea what is coming their way (but I’m ready to listen and hold out a hand when they see and hear.)

It will be frustrating to watch, but when GC and Diocesan conventions in TEC begin to pass and celebrate these absurd resolutions, they will only ISOLATE themselves further from the mind of the communion and the rest of the Christian world.  That’s okay with me, beacuse the ACNA will continue to grow in numbers and in moral strength, and will be more easily recognizable to global Anglicans.  Soon, it will be a breeze to get 2/3 of the world’s primates to recognize this new province as a legitiamte holder of the Anglican faith, as well as to forge relationships with other orthodox faiths.

That my friends, is a GOOD thing, no matter how painful a process to watch.

Carrie

#183 Moot,
“A few things from a largely ignored member of the Peanut Gallery here on Stand Firm”
Moot, I read each of your postings carefully knowing you will make an informed articulate point generally in a humorous and playful manner. You and Mike B. would be great to chat with sitting around the pot belly stove in the old hardware store with the wood floor. S.F. will have to be our “virtual” version of this.
God Bless
AKA Dan Steel “crime fighter” (crime fighters inc.)

This is a depressing emission for those of us living nearby.  Nevertheless, here in Virginia they can have the “integrity” flavor of their choice all thy like, but they still can’t have the cherry on top:

“That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in
or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions.

This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a
legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the
design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its
political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status
to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.”

Do Not Pass Go.  Do Not Collect $200.

#168,
I don’t think that you are getting my point. I am not talking about those still in or staying with TEC. I’m talking specifically about those who have left or are leaving TEC. I am very wary of them, in general, because of all the false doctrines they’ve been exposed to for so long. I feel that we need to start with a clean slate. But I know that is not going to happen. Bishop so-and-so and Father so-and-so were Episcopal last week and are suddenly Anglican this week. What has changed? I suspect that it would be virtually impossible to have been ordained or to have served in TEC and to not have been in the least infected with one or more strains of false doctrine.

Moot,

I never ignore you. (Or, to be more precise, I never ignore you more than i ignore anyone else ).

Excellent post at [183], especially the part about what SF is and “getting it.”

As one of the founders of the Sacred Order Of Pompous Asses, I must firmly object to the inclusion of The Seer of Santa Fe in our group. He is certainly an ass, and defines pomposity by his words, but you miss the essence of the man when you dismiss him at that point.

I actually, genuinely believe he, together with Schori, Bruno, O’Neil, Mathes, and 95% of the rest of the TECHOB, is the willing emmisary of the Evil One. No Fooling. If you believe in the Risen Christ, you must also believe in The Satanic Presence. These imps are the embodyment of the Presence. Do not so easily dismiss them, even TW, the absurd and bemused old man in a clown suit. They mean our destruction.

Thankfully, they are always stupid. If their Boss was smart, he wouldn’t be in the mess he is always in.

Dear Take action, in reference to your comment #154 I clearly state that I am a layman and I am looking at the trajectory of TEC to discern the future for those of us still in TEC.  I think that doing God’s will requires discernment that is incorporated in the Church.  False teachers can thwart God’s will by bending the ignorant and uninformed.  There is no lone wolf Christian so as sheep we “flock” and bend ourselves to the discernment process of the body as far as we understand it comporting with God’s Word as found in Christ and Scripture.  That is why the undermining of Scripture by false shepherds is so dangerous.  I can find Scripture that have good things to say about women who are prostitutes (Rehab and the story of Perez’s mother), loose women, warriors, etc but there is not ONE POSITIVE SCRIPTURE about homosexuals or their relationships.

Hi again, thanks for all of your responses…especially 173 (take action), 175 (Greg) and 181 (Dr. Turner), and 134 (episcapalienated)

To 173 I say:  I know what you mean about the I Cor 7 passage. I am aware of the history behind that…..but the principle remains the same. He is giving a principle on how to deal with temptation in the sexual realm.

  Secondly, I don’t put sexual activity and physical intimacy as the number one thing. I agree with you that one can have a close relationship without sex. But I do see physical sexual drives as very powerful—-these are strong desires and one has to know how to deal with them in a practical way (ie they don’t just go away on their own because we were created with sexual drives).
    Thirdly you stated that God does not create homosexuals. I did not say He created homosexuals, but I do believe , of course, that they are here. How the homosexual has gotten these feelings has been researched and debated for years. It may have to do with biology, chemicals, hormones in the womb, environment, sin and a combination of things—-whatever—-the fact remains that people struggle with same sex attraction. 
    Fourthly, you are right in saying that God can give us power to live the lives he desires for us… I agree. But God gives this power by the Holy Spirit and also by means of grace. He also gives us practical ways of dealing with internal conflicts (ie 1 Cor 7)—I am saying that it seems that the Bible has given specific remedies for the heterosex person—-that he has also given to the homosexual person. There are , however, some remedies for the heterosex person that are not available to the homosexual and therefore it may be harder from that standpoint.
    I also think I see and feel a lot of hatred or anamosity by Christians for the gay person. I think many Christians look at the extreem gays and that they do not realize there are many that are not extreem or even living out their sexual lives. We tend to hold up the extreems to put our arguments forth. Heterosexuals have the same extreems. I do feel that we need to seek , in some way, to demonstrate God’s love and that we should be more careful in the way we say things. Jesus used the harsher words (if you want to define it as harsh) for the religious leaders that were in the wrong….while he often used more compassionate words for the prostitues and “sinners”. I think we need to weigh our words and actions in a more careful way——when many gays look at the church what do they see? Our friend that committed suicide was not living out his sexual life, but he was so convicted about his desires and had such little success and putting these out he gave up. We had weeks of sermons on the sin of Achan and how one man’s sin can affect the spiritual life and vitality of the entire church. He ,therefore, killed himself (I am not saying his thinking was correct)—I am saying we have to be careful to teach the truth in kindness knowing that we ourselves could stumble and that we don’t want to cause our brethren to stumble.

To GREG, at 175
  I admit—I don’t know if some are born that way or not. Either way, from my experience with most of the gays I know it started at a young age and was acknowledged when they got to puburty. I am a woman and I remember my life back as far as the age of three. Even as young as three, I had attraction to the opposite sex and not to the same sex. The gays, I know personally, have had this same experience in the opposite way—-attraction to same sex at this early age. The ones that haven’t had it occuring at a young age , that I know personally, are bisexual.
    I understand that you are saying that we should deal with sin as sin. I am thankful for Dr. Turner’s explanation on the text. I wanted to be sure that what we have in our English versions conveys the meanings of the Greek and the Hebrew text and their cultures, becuase this is where the Gay Christians and the Christians who believe that the Bible is God’s word have to center their focus. We have to be sure we are rightly handling the Word of God.  (There was a lot of debate on how to handle the Word in the past, of course, with Black issues….and I think it pays to be careful) so that we know what is being said.
   
To 134 Episcapalienated

  Thanks for your imput. I am so glad you have found fulfillment in the celibate life and have found Christians that have loved you in an unconditional way. I find that very encouraging. The Matt 19 passage is a helpful passage. My main concern is that for my personal friends who are gay—-hmmm, how to put it——-they are desiring more than celibacy. They long to have a close and loving relationship. ...and for the ones that I know, they could not have this with the opposite sex—-it would be like someone asking my to marry a woman (and I am a woman;-)  ) So for them it is a hard struggle. These folks are striving to live godly lives and I suppose this entails suffering. It is hard because God did create us for intimacy and he did give us sexual desires—-but life is hard. I wish I had better answers…

To 181—Dr Turner

Thanks so much for your detailed response. I will have to study it further. Thank you.

Clarity!!  Clarity!!  Thank God for political clarity!!  And IMHO, this resolution has as much to do with Christianity as my dog’s chow bowl.  It has everything to do with secular “look at me we’re hip and modern” politics.
TEC via Dio. of Va. is telling people, “Here is who we are, here is what we choose to pursue.  Here is our treasure.”  What can be bad about that?  It’s not like we didn’t know it already.  The more open they are, the better for those who would like another option. Many people are cool with this resolution, many are not.  For those that aren’t, this res. helps you establish a new venue.

S.F., once again, fulfilling a great need to note and comment on the destruction of a once great institution.

Mad Pooter (& teddy mak),

Actually, I believe I called Tom an “arrogant, presumptuous ass,” and I believe it was on the thread about private schools, not this one.

I believe it was response to his claim that the only reason I send my child to private school was to avoid the “hoi polloi,” which is of course thinly-veiled code for “you’re a racist.”

So yes - arrogant… presumptuous… and an ass.

Mad Pooter?

the snarkster™

Well, Tom Woodward may have earned the title of “presumptuous ass,” while Teddy Mak may be the founder of the “Sacred Order of Pompous Asses.”  But Greg alone has received the honor of being designated as a certain kind of “Hat.”  To the best of my knowledge, not even Sarah has received that honor.  I got the feeling that Greg regarded the appellation as a certain kind of honor.  Sarah does proudly own to “Bottom Feeder,” however.  Matt, of course, is always kind and gentle, so no one calls him names.

I was told by private email this weekend that I was “not really an Anglican,” and should return to the Southern Baptists, but that hardly rises to the level of insult.

I think the main problem that has to be addressed: Is the bible the rule of faith and life in the church? Does our Creator determine what is right and wrong or do we?

Our Creator says that sex outside of the marriage of one man and one woman is wrong. Period.

The bible teaches us how to deal with sin. We are to live in daily repentance and faith. Repentance of our sins and know that we are forgiven because of Christ Jesus.

Anyone who is not in a Christian marriage gets to repent daily (or as needed) of their unlawful lusts. (single persons, widows, divorced, married persons, homosexuals, pedophiles, etc.) Some of us will not get married for a variety of reasons. That is our cross. Pick it up and carry it daily. We all have crosses (My spouse died 12 years ago so I do know what I’m talking about).

The passage in Genesis about it not being good for a man to be alone does not justify sinful/unlawful sexual relations. It tells us how to properly express our needs (a man is to leave his parents and cleave to his wife and her alone).

Because of sin and living in a fallen world, some of us will not be able to marry. And it is better to live alone than with someone who is 1) not a believer 2) contentious and will make our lives miserable 3) Etc.

The bible teaches us how to deal with unrepentant sinners living in gross public sin. (eg: the man caught in adultery with his step-mother) And the congregation was chastised for tolerating the sin and told to repent and put the unrepentant sinner out of the church.

The bible teaches us how to deal with repentant sinners. They are to receive forgiveness, patience, compassion, and help to forsake their sins. Christians are struggling sinners who seek to forsake sin. If we do not want to forsake our sin and try to justify our sin - that is where problems begin.

The bible teaches us how to deal with false teachers. They are not to be tolerated. They are to be marked and avoided. We are not to accept them in our midst. We are to warn others of them by name. (eg: Gene Robinson who teaches Christians can practice homosexuality)

Lastly, this whole nonsense of justifying being a homosexual because of DNA. Alcoholics say the same thing, but do not use it to justify staying an alcoholic. They repent, fight it, and are forgiven.

We all have sin in our DNA. We are sinners by nature. Each sinner has tendencies towards different sins that want to enslave them. Drunkenness, sexual immorality (adultery, fornication, homosexuality, pedophilia, etc), greed, gluttony, sloth, etc.

We pick up our crosses daily and follow Jesus no matter which vice wants to master us. Period.

At least in Virginia the Pew sitters have a choice.  Those parishes in Dio of Virginia with a large traditionalist majority can simply disaffiliate and join the ADV. Those factions within divided churches should get on the phone with +Bishop Minns and start new church plants.  Those traditionalist individuals who wake up and go - what the _________ when they read the moring paper probably can drive to a close by Anglican Church.  The ADV needs a hard hitting information blitz so that every pew sitter knows what just went down. The Dio of Virginia needs to pay a large price for what the activists have just done.

#198 William Witt,
“But Greg alone has received the honor of being designated as a certain kind of “Hat.” To the best of my knowledge, not even Sarah has received that honor.”
Sarah has had a number of songs linked to her from fawning fans. On the spur of the moment the “hat” I would give her would be something like, “Your Most High Princess of Fisking” (YMHPOF). It probably will be seen as faint praise by some.

In my view, part of the reason Virginia acted now is because the property litigation is still pending (i.e. on appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court) and therefore the outcome still in doubt. The parishes willing to lose their property have alreafdy left. The orthodox parishes that remain are not willing to put their property at risk.

Sorry, hit “send: too soon.

The departing parishes won at trial. That is a huge victory, and yet the Diocese and 815 might still win on appeal. I think that the reappraisers wanted to throw down the gauntlet to the remaining orthodox parishes now, while they still have the threat that the conservatives may lose their property, than later, especially if the Diocese and 815 lose their appeals.

j.m.c.—Thank you for your irenic response to my earlier comments. I’d like to make one thing clear - I do not use the terms “Biblical literalist” or “fundamentalist” as perjorative terms. They are approaches to the Bible and to the authority of Scripture held by many devout and faithful Christians. I am stunned by the response of so many here at SF that reads “attack” into pretty straightforward comment.

It was interesting to see Fred Phelps mentioned. Fred and I go back a long time—to 1965 when he represented me in a civil rights trial in Lawrence, Kansas. While I disagree with him in so many, many ways he did feature me on his godhatesfags.com website in 2004 with an appreciation of me and my graciousness to Fred. The subject line “Thank you, Tom Woodward.”  My guess is that few at SF can or would want to make the same claim!

Ok Deacon Dale #171:
How nice of you to pray for me. But you made my point. Peter, Thomas and others in the gospels call Jesus “God”. He did not say it himself. “In the begining was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God…” Where does John say that Jesus was God from the begining? And besides if he did how did he know? Sounds lik propaganda to me.

Those who are quoting the Bible as saying “it is not good for a man to be alone” are misquoting it in a subtle but crucial detail, as my italics are intended to point out.  That error even enables such twistings as spoken to me recently by an unbelieving co-worker (who also opined that “Jesus was a sinner, too”!) that the Bible says “it is not good for man to sleep alone”!  That’s exactly the justification used by commenters here and elsewhere for gay and lesbian sex as an urge that must be acted upon for survival, as hunger and thirst.

Genesis is describing the order and nature of God’s creation of humanity, not mandating the sexual activity of our individual fallen choices!  The animals were created male and female, and it dawned upon Adam, as God apparently intended it to, that he was male and the only human around, and with no female like himself, that is, of like human nature different from but complementary to his own.

Male-female marriage (not cohabitation or fornication) is an embodiment and a type of the relationship for which all humanity was created by God to enjoy with Him, and so glorify and enjoy Him forever.  Paul (yes Paul, Paul, Paul, Paul!) makes that point clearly at the end of Ephesians 5.  Read the whole chapter and the point is unmistakable and unavoidable.  Same-sex relationships are a sort of idolatry of human nature seeking to become one with itself rather than to become reconciled in salvation from sin and one with God.  They inevitably lead us away from God and that is why the dire warnings against them, consistently given explicitly in OT and NT, and implicitly by Jesus in the Gospels when He quotes Genesis to the Pharisees as God’s plan for sexual relationships only properly consumanted in monogamous, lifetime male-female marriage.

I am stunned by the response of so many here at SF that reads “attack” into pretty straightforward comment.

Fr. Tom, maybe it would help if you defined what you mean by “literalist” - as has been pointed out it is a term that has different meanings to different people. What does it mean- literally - to you?

#204 Let me describe a hermeneutic “make it up as one goes along”. I mean by that nothing pejorative. It is simply a description of an attitude to Scriptural interpretation taken by many clergy in TEC. I hope you accept it as the compliment it is intended to be.

I do not use the terms “Biblical literalist” or “fundamentalist” as perjorative terms. They are approaches to the Bible and to the authority of Scripture held by many devout and faithful Christians. I am stunned by the response of so many here at SF that reads “attack” into pretty straightforward comment

This is the level of response I expected from Tom Woodward.  Woodward laid out the following syllogism:

Major Premise: Only literalists believe that the Bible condemns homosexual activity.
Minor Premise: Anglicans are not literalists.
Conclusion: Anglicans do not believe that the Bible condemns homosexual activity.

I responded by challenging both the major premise and the conclusion.  First, Tom Woodward never defined “literalism,” and rather committed the fallacy of ambiguity by using the word “literalism” differently in the Major and Minor Premise.

I provided a counter-example to the Conclusion.  Lambeth 98 1.10 condemned homosexual activity on the grounds of its incompatibility with Scripture.

So, either Tom Woodward is wrong in his major premise—others besides literalists believe that the Bible condemns homosexual activity; or, he is wrong in his minor premise—most Anglicans are literalists after all; or, he has identified “Anglican” to mean the small group of like-minded “non-literalists” with whom he agrees.

Woodward’s response was to ignore the criticism completely and complain that he was “stunned” that his “straightforward comment” (which was anything but straightforward) should have been viewed as an “attack.” 

Of course, it was an “attack.”  Terms like “literalist,” “fundamentalist,” and “religious right” are for theological progressives the theological equivalent of the “N” word.  They are ways of saying that one does not have to take those who disagree with one’s position seriously.  After all, those who disagree are “literalists.”  And no right-thinking person is a “literalist.” In Tom Woodward’s words: “the Anglican Communion rejected that approach a long, long time ago.”

What could have been predicted, however, would be that Tom Woodward would never acknowledge that his argument was fallacious.  After all, if Woodward is correct that (1) only literalists believe the Bible condemns homosexuality, and (2) Anglicans are not literalists—“they rejected that approach a long, long time ago,” then (3) Lambeth 98 never happened. 

But it did.

Ah well#208:
What does it mean in the end? We live,we die and are very soon forgotten.

The best we can do is to follow what we believe to be the truth; not somebody else’s truth for all truth comes from God. He is the ultimate, unknowable Force and we are nothing in this scheme of things no matter how important we think we are.

We are here on the earth not by our own choosing, but on finding ourselves here we are responsible for our own actions towards our fellow human. Live and let live. Let others find their happiness where they can. Let people find love with whom they choose, bcause it is better to love than to hate. We cannot impose rules where the heart is concerned, except that if a relationship with another brings pain to other people then we should avoid that. “Do as you would be done by.”

Love your children and guard and guide them. Keep them out of places which would destroy their morals and their minds. In the end we can only do what we understand is best for our families. Society has changed, is changing and will change. We can pass on to our children the values we have. They may discard them, but that is their option, we can’t force them. We can pray for them and always look for what is good in their personalities and their lives while minding our own business in areas where we disagree. We are accountable for ourselves, not them. If they choose a lifestyle not to our beliefs God will take are of them, if you believe in God. He did not deputize you to be His watchman, judge or executioner. The world is the mess it’s in because of people trying to mandate behavior and control others. Punish crime, not morals. Let Live, you guys. You’d be much happier concentrating on your own behavior, not those of others which don’t affect you. AMEN.

Gloria, we have a redeemer who came to save us and told us that God loves us. And alas, the world is in the mess it’s in because of people who cannot control *themselves.*

#211:
Believe your truth and I’ll believe mine as my conscience speaks to me. We live i America which is a free country.

#204 Gloria, Jesus did claim to be God at least twice in the Gospels.  The first time He did (of the 2 references that I will quote below), the Pharisees picked up stones to throw at Him, the second time they condemned His to death.  The first time He referred to Himself as “I AM”, that is, “YWHW” or “Yahweh”, the name the LORD gave for Himself to Moses at the burning bush.  The second time Jesus told the Pharisees they would see Him coming on the clouds of heaven and seated at the right hand of power, OT referecnces understood by the Jews as clearly referring to God alone.  C. S. Lewis’ formula still holds, that Jesus MUST be regarded as “lunatic, liar, or LORD”; no other possibility can be found in any honest reading of Scripture.
———————————————————————
John 8:56-59 (New American Standard Bible)

56"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.”

57So the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?”

58Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.”

59Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple.
——————————————————————————
(another reference I forgot to mention above)
John 10:24-39 (New American Standard Bible)

24The Jews then gathered around Him, and were saying to Him, “How long will You keep us in suspense? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly.”

25Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father’s name, these testify of Me.

26"But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep.

27"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;

28and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.

29”[a]My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.

30"I and the Father are one.”

31The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him.

32Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?”

33The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.”

34Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I SAID, YOU ARE GODS’?

35"If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),

36do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

37"If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me;

38but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.”

39Therefore they were seeking again to seize Him, and He eluded their grasp.
—————————————————————————
Matthew 26:62-66 (New American Standard Bible)

62The high priest stood up and said to Him, “Do You not answer? What is it that these men are testifying against You?”

63But Jesus kept silent And the high priest said to Him, “I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God.”

64Jesus said to him, “You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN.”

65Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, you have now heard the blasphemy;

66what do you think?” They answered, “He deserves death!”
(a parallel passage is in Luke 22:67-71; see the OT passage to which Jesus refers below)
——————————————————————-
Daniel 7:12-14 (New American Standard Bible)

12"As for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away, but an extension of life was granted to them for an appointed period of time.
  13"I kept looking in the night visions,
      And behold, with the clouds of heaven
      One like a Son of Man was coming,
      And He came up to the Ancient of Days
      And was presented before Him.
  14"And to Him was given dominion,
      Glory and a kingdom,
      That all the peoples, nations and men of every language
      Might serve Him
      His dominion is an everlasting dominion
      Which will not pass away;
      And His kingdom is one
      Which will not be destroyed.
——————————————————————
Clear enough?

Milton #213.  Well good for you and C.S. Lewis! I guess you’ll fly up to heaven and join him when you die! This is as clear as mud! Jesus said he was the Son of MAN! Are “man” and God synonymous? I don’t think so. If he will be at the right hand of God he still will be separate and distinct from God. God is God is God. The Father and the Spirit are the same because God is a spirit and they who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth!
I noticed that Jesus hid from the stone throwers… not a good quotation for your argument! That means God hid from man because He felt vulnerable to His own creation. You are saying God is mortal: I say only Jesus was. A Jewish college classmate once asked me (fifty plus years ago) “How can anyone kill God; how could God die?” Well Jesus was crucified and he did die! Besides Jesus said his FATHER was God. Are you the same as your father? You may be in agreement with your father and of “one mind” as in “being one” with him on a particular subject. Does that make you your father? Come on. Riddles aren’t for the religious. Or maybe they are. Kind of irrational don’t you think? But you’re welcome to being so. I don’t mind at all. Why should you mind that I’ve come to believe as I do? God hasn’t punished me for that. I guess some of you are disappointed. Life has done this to me but I am happier now. I could say my life has been difficult because I BELIEVED a false doctrine and THAT displeased God, because He expects worship for HIM and commands it. Otherwise I would have to think God is spiteful and masochistic and I don’t want to think that. Not at all. A loving God does not hurt His people, nor His children for no reason.

Dear Mad Potter,
I take exception with your definition of “normal.”  The norm on the bell curve is around 50%.  Highest estimate I have ever heard for this new concept of totally homosexual orientation is 10% and that doesn’t fall into the normal range. 

Perhaps my two selections of alcoholism and pedophilia were inartful.  How about:  pride, adultery, fornication, lying, gambling, over-eating (I have dibs on that one), neglect, irresponsibility, etc., etc.  A sin is a sin is a sin, if you are a Christian.  Anything that gets between you and God is sin.  I believe, using what is and ISN’T written in the Word is my guide to what is and is not sin.  I am not a “literalist.”  I understand the difference between myth and parable and reality and I know that the cultural laws differ from the moral laws.  There are enough direct references to homosexual acts that in order to be consistent with my reliance on that book as my gudiance, I have to take notice. 

But even more obvious to me than the various passages that can be swept under the rug with innovative interpretations that just happen to neatly dovetail with the World is what the Bible does not say about same sex relationships.  There aren’t any in there that I can find.  If it is such a God-inspired thing, why isn’t it in the Bible for us to model?  Did He just happen to leave it out?

And last, to me, a simple country teacher, it is obvious we aren’t talking shellfish and polyester.  This one relationship, man and woman, is the basis of it all.  The foundation of life, of DNA.  From Adam and Eve to Christ and his Bride, the church.  It is how we regenerate ourselves, how we renew, what the song says “makes the world go ‘round.” It makes perfect sense to me that any thwarting of this God-given foundation is sinful.  It seems so simple to me, just as the right to life seems so simple.

It is fine with me that people disagree.  It is fine with me that they find what they call love where they can find it.  I can’t fix the world.  What isn’t fine is that suddenly, after two thousand years since Christ and 400 years of Anglican history, a small group of people suddenly say the rules have changed because WE SAY SO.  And if we don’t go along, well then we are hard-hearted neanderthals with no sense of nuance.  Uh-uh.  Not going to buy it.  And oh dear God, I have got to just shut up and let you all have at it.  This is numbing my mind, like hitting my head over and over on a lamp post.

I wish it were different.  I truly do.  Anybody want to see pictures of my grandkids?

Sic em grandma!

I bet they are beautiful.  I do not have the time to read every comment so if I am being redundant please forgive.  A lot of back and forth over homosexuality here but the good grandmother is proof of the pudding: “want to see my grandkids?”  Nuff said!

That is the reason homosexuality is an abomination.  Can’t produce children.  No children means no Church means no worship and no people of God to return God’s love.  Now there are selfish heterosexuals who live only for the flesh as well and care not about children and they will face judgement as well.

Two men cannot be one and cannot continue creation as it was continued for them.  An egg cell is just a cell, not fertile not anything, until a sperm cell reaches it.  Only a man and a woman can act together to accomplish God’s intention.  And is not the male cell completing and fulfilling the female cell so much like the Incarnation with Christ entering the world or the Church like Christ and his Bride? 

  The perpetuation of creation cannot happen with two “innies” or two “outies”.  We all know this so what kind of love is it that is so selfish as to rob God of his creation?  Homosexuallity!  Coveting a role that is not yours is a sin.  There is a role for women and a role for men and that is how we are designed.  Negation of Genesis and Creation is what homosexuality is all about.

I bet those grandkids are beautiful, can’t wait for mine!

Gloria, to address only one of the many issues you raise in your #214, (to address them all would take at least an hour and kill many digital trees) you have denied the divinity of Jesus and with it the Trinity.  The majority of both the Apostle’s Creed and the Nicean Creed is devoted to affirming His nature and His divinity in great detail, specifically replying to the heresies of the 1st-3rd centuries that you restate in your comment.  Jesus was true God in spirit before the Incarnation, and since the Incarnation will forever be both true God and true man in one seamless unity, the homeostatic union, one person with two natures, the human nature in perfect submission to God and the divine nature in the fulness of deity dwelling in bodily form.  Try reading the Nicean Creed, one phrase at a time, and compare it with your post in #214, and pray that God reveal Himself to you in it as He truly is, with no interpretation from me or any other human, but by the revelation of the Holy Spirit.

Gloria #214, it should not suprise you that your opinions will stand in stark opposition to most of the people here, as most of the SF’ers are Christians, which implies that we believe in Scripture, the Creeds, etc. 

This does not mean (at least for most of us) that we are in blind acceptance of that which cannot be known.  I know for myself that I am the recipient of a 47-year-old-and-still-continuing lesson from the Almighty in who He is and what He wants of me.  In this lesson, several things have been made clear to me (despite my oftentimes reluctance to listen or accept them).

1. I really was sealed in His name in Baptism and am a child of God.  Even when I don’t want to be.
2. He has shown compassion to us, and allowed his essence, his “son” in our parlance to become fully human and fully divine simultaneously, and then die, sacrificing a part of himself to right the balance with us.
3. Through this sacrifice, I have the the possibility of freedom from sin.  AS someone who has embraced sin, and felt its pull and gifts, as well as its horrors and pain, I can say definitively that this is a big deal.

I am sorry that your experiences have not led you to this place, where I am, but I am fully confident that God is not done with you, and that your eyes will be open, and your ears will hear, exactly what you need to before your time here is expended.

I appreciate your presence.  God Bless You, and Keep the Faith….mrb

Now, about the Va. resolution, I think this is a grand time to thank the Lord for the clarity this resolution provides.  I’ve always said, better the devil you know, than the one you don’t know.  So now, the good people of TEC Dio of Va can see exactly what their spiritual guide and protector Peter Lee believes, and exactly what TEC membership will mean for them going forward and decide what to do in the light of the knowledge that they no longer have to wonder when/if SSB/Marriage will be an issue in their backyard.

The dark one is already at the gate.  There is no more wondering to do.

My two cents…KTF!...mrb

[217] Milton,

You wrote [emphasis added]

…both true God and true man in one seamless unity, the homeostatic union, one person with two natures….

If memory serves, I believe that you have misspoken in referring to this as the homeostatic union, the correct term being hypostatic union. I mention this only because anyone attempting to search out the term in a dictionary or on the web would likely not find the correct reference.

Blessings and regards,
Keith Toepfer

Jesus did say “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Light.  No man cometh unto the Father except through Me.”  And did He not also say “He who hath seen Me hath seen the Father?”  What’s your answer, Gloria?

Cennydd#21:
He still did not say He was God, even there. He was saying that he was an advocate to the Father (God), our only mediator, intercessor and advocate(the Way) Other religions don’t claim that, only that they hold the truth. Then he spoke his Truth because it was how he saw his mission to the world and THAT was true. And the Life? He was spending the few short years of his adult life trying to make people understand how they should behave toward each other even dying for his beliefs and work. What’s so hard about that to understand ?
In addtion, we know that no one has ever seen God, don’t we? But Jesus was the most perfect representation of God to man. He let his light so shine before men that they could see the reflection of God in his life and (hopefully) glorify and worship the Father in heaven… the Great I Am of the universe.  Christians are supposed to emulate that aren’t they? So where’s the rub? Being the Way, the Truth and the Life to God does not make a person God.

Martial Artist #220 The correct quote is “I am the Way, the Truth and the LIFE.”  (not light).  This has always been interpreted by the church to support the exclusive claim of Christ to bestow eternal life on those who believe.

Isn’t it odd that of ALL the world’s religions - ONLY the founder of Christianity rose from the dead? Since religion is all about finding God, doesn’t it make sense to follow the one who gave miraculous evidence of God’s approval? Buddha, Mohammad, Albert Schweitzer, and Anton LeVay are all dead, and likely to remain that way. Only Christ has SEEN the other side and returned.

So what was his message? Jesus claimed both divinity AND exclusivity:

  13When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
  14And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
  15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
  16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
  17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
  18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
  19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
  20Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.
- Matthew, Chapter 16
(Who can give the keys to the kingdom of heaven except God?)

7Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.
  8All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.
  9I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved,...
28And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. -John, Chapter 10
(Who gives eternal life except God? All the others are thieves and robbers!)

Then Jesus PROVED these claims by resurrection! If you have a new message, a better message, a conflicting message - just return from the dead, and we will all listen closely. Until then, you are not an authority.

Gloria - How about John 20:24-29 (ESV):

24 Now Thomas, one of the Twelve, called the Twin was not with them when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe.”

26 Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.” 28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

He certainly claims to be God, since that is what Thomas calls Him and He does not deny it!

#190, RM Bruton,
I have been in TEC for about 20 years in various churches in various states. In the churches I have been in, I have never heard any false doctrine from the pulpit or in any class. I am a graduate of a fundamentalist Baptist seminary and can spot such a thing a mile away. All the false doctrine I hear is from websites like this that describe different parishes and news reports.
Yes, I live in the Dark Diocese but one would never`know it by what goes on in my parish. And it’s probably the biggest parish in this part of LA.
I don’t believe my rector or his associates have been infected at all. We do have a female retired priest. You may feel that is false doctrine. but we can disagree.

Milton #217.
I have long taken issue with the Nicean Creed which was the one, most memorable decision of the Congress at Nicea. It was based on the Apostles’ beliefs most of which evolved over time. Don’t tell me that they all so believed the same way prior to 485 that they found it neccessary to make such a far-reaching and profound declaration of those “well-founded” (?) beliefs! Obviously, some did not believe that way, so a concensus had to be reached in making the statement of their Faith. You can see Hellenistic and Roman beliefs and influences…gods who cohabited with humans and produced demi-gods…in the whole thing. They weren’t original at all. We all have a spark of divinity in us. Jesus had much more than we.

Yes. It is obvious that many SFers don’t believe the way I do. A lot of them at church don’t even seem to believe to be kind to each other far less to the stranger and the outcast. They do not care to genuinely serve this population. It looks and feels good and is praise inducing, so they cook for the homeless and help to house runaway teenagers, some of whom should undoubtedly not be encouraged to defy parents. They view only at a safe distance the “least of these my bretheren,”  holding them in unmitigated scorn and making sure they don’t contaminate their precious offspring. As if they would try, but preemptive strikes are on the side of caution. They even tell these hapless people not to attend their church services—-so unlike the Jesus they say they follow. This is why I’m turned off by Episcopalians.
I was baptised Anglican at the age of two months four days old. I spent from infancy to adolescence in religious schools. I was confirmed by my cousin’s godfather at St. John the Divine in NY. No need to quote scripture to me; I probably know more than the bunch of you, because religious knowledge was part and parcel of my education. That said, I guess God will judge me more harshly for what I know.

TEC has caused me more pain than I’ve ever sought so why should I believe in anything at all to do with it, if THIS is part of Christ’s church? Money-grabber and status-seeker was not the Christ I believed in. That seems to be the raison d’etre of his followers. He did not live the life he did because he was God but because he was the perfect man. His followers should aspire to the same kind of person because he showed us that it is entirely possible for a human being to live like that—selfless and godly.
‘Nuff said. Thanks for all prayers, but save some for your hypocritical brothers; especially the pompous would-be theologians discussing theories and history which are irrelevant to ordinary folk like me. Or to the salvation of my soul, should I have one.

Gloria, do you mind explaining in what way TEC has caused you pain?

Gloria [227]
After having sifted through your posts, I can’t think of a single denomination that you would be happy in.

#228. Their name is Legion. I choose not to elaborate in this forum, but I know of whence I speak.
#229. You’re proabaly right. They are all a bunch of hypocrites, aren’t they? The Falwells, the Bakkers etc. what a disgrace! What shame they bring to name of Jesus!

Gloria, I see you have been hurt and let down by TEC, and come to reject the central truth claims of orthodox Christianity. Plenty of intelligent, knowledgable and sensitive people think the same. I’m genuinely sorry to hear of both. The world is full of different truth claims about God - including those who think it true that there is no God. I understand the latter is not your view. As I understand you, you think it true that there is a God (and a God who in some ways is similar to the Christian God - eg you think it true that those who believe in God should care for “the least”). I’m just not clear on what grounds who believe those truth claims (I don’t expect you to explain - you don’t have to do any such thing) nor why you think those who who disagree with you should be persuaded that you are right and they are in error.

You have discovered rightly that the church is full of sinful hypocrites. I agree completely and want you to know that I am a sinful hypocrite. There’s always room for one more…

Gloria - How about John 20:24-29 (ESV):

24 Now Thomas, one of the Twelve, called the Twin was not with them when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe.”

26 Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.” 28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

He certainly claims to be God.  That is what Thomas calls Him and He does not deny it!

thinking:

When I read your husband’s comment last night which contained the reference to your gay Christian friend who committed suicide, I was inconsolable.  I just broke down and wept like a child and I couldn’t respond at the time.

What can I tell you?  I am a big ninny, although I try to pull it off with style and grace.

I did say a prayer for the repose of his soul and I can dare to believe that he may now understand perfectly what a loving Savior wanted him to know all along.

As for the Church, what knuckleheads we can be!  And there’s really no excuse for it.

But here’s where I think you and I part company:

The Matt 19 passage is a helpful passage. My main concern is that for my personal friends who are gay—-hmmm, how to put it——-they are desiring more than celibacy.

Sorry, but I’ll have to say that what your gay friends desire is considerably less than celibacy if it includes any type of sexual activity which is prohibited by Holy Scripture and Mother Church.

And the passage from Matthew 19 isn’t “helpful” at all unless and until we are prepared to live according to what it requires of us.

We cannot come to faith in Christ without repentance, and we do not undergo repentance until we experience conviction of sin.  For some of us that means finding yourself down on all fours howling like a wounded animal at the realization that you have, as the Act of Contrition puts it, offended against a holy God who is worthy of all our love.

After twenty years or so of sexual promiscuity and reckless behavior, I experienced that kind of conversion through the influence of the Holy Spirit, or so I believe.  I find that the witness of that same Holy Spirit in my life confirms the teachings of the Bible and the Church about our sexuality. 

When I read the 19th chapter of St. Matthew’s gospel, I felt as if God was speaking directly to me and I have not wavered in that conviction, although I am far from suggesting that the pursuit of sexual chastity will take you along any route other than the hard way of the cross.  But as Christians, what else should we hope for or expect?

Now, I may be daft, but this much is certain.  The same Holy Spirit cannot be telling one Christian that he must live his life in conformity to our Lord’s own words, while He tells another that he or she is free to disregard them, or attempt to radically change their meaning, in pursuit of a form of sexual fulfillment (if you can even call it that) which the Christian Church has always declared to be gravely sinful.

You and your husband are Episcopalians and so am I.  But the Adversary has done his work well and we are now (at least) two Churches in one denomination.  I will tell you what I think it is we Episcopalians really need, and it is not another bruising debate about human sexuality.  We need a revival throughout the Church along the lines of Whitefield and Wesley and, I dare say, the Oxford Movement too. 

If we could get out of God’s way long enough to allow Him to bring something like that about, I suspect that some of our problems might not seem so intractable after all.  How’s that for a “modest proposal” for diocesan convention?

I’ll be praying for you all no matter how it turns out.  God bless!

Thank you for that post, Epsicopalienated.  God bless you in your work of the Gospel.

# 231:
Thank you for your kind comments. Our human nature is a generically sinful one and we are told “all have sinned andcome short of the glory of God.” The first verse I had to memorize as a child is telling isn’t it? But do I really believe it? Don’t know. I wouldn’t boast about it though.
#232 You seem to believe that by repetition you will convince. Save your time or get a life. I am very busy so goodbye.

#205 Gloria,
“What does it mean in the end? We live,we die and are very soon forgotten.” This statement sounds more like the book of Ecclesiastes in the Old Testament. “Where does John say that Jesus was God from the beginning?” ‘And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us’ (John 1:14).
As I said in post #151, I will pray that you will have the will to believe.  Without the will to believe no one can quote you suitable evidence that Christ is God from scripture. Do you want to believe?

Well, honestly, Tom certainly adds a bit of excitement to the group discussion.  Otherwise, we would be simply be bemoaning the latest failures of TEC to be Christian.  Outrage at the ridiculous come home at least offers us the opportunity to delineate our own arguments and thereby get clear in our own minds.  Newbies who haven’t done that work the rest of us have done over and over and over again for decades now will have the opportunity to catch up, to see how reasoning, educated people present arguments and think.  It is a good work but it is a frustrating work.  It helps me to remember that we are unlikely to make converts here.  The real dialogue is within the heart of those who are obedient to God but floundering a bit.  That will never be those who come here to play the role of devil’s advocate ... and I mean this last literally, regardless of whether they understand who their master might be.  The rest of us play a kind of teaching role ... better learning our own lessons in the doing.I think the process of the destruction of TEC is sad but inevitable and now demonstrates something of God’s will for us.  It is NOT acceptable to pray with those who worship other gods.  That’s a lesson that I think is emergent here.  It flies in the face of “open communion”, the modern and postmodern ecumenical movements, and “inclusivity”.  At the same time, we must balance the necessity of “rightly dividing the word of truth” with avoiding the trap of saying to ourselves, “Thank God I am not like that Pharisee over there.”

#236 Deacon Dale:
I used to believe because I wanted to believeas I was instructed.
I’m questioning now, because I need to question and hope to receive answers that are not just based in blind faith. If they aren’t there then I won’t believe.

And yes! There is a time for everything. We are like the grass in the field that is cut down and cast into the oven. What else is there? The writer of Ecclesiastes was not that wrong! Perhaps our spirit goes back to the One who gave it. Are we aware of that? Your credible answer? Your sources for it? Your personal knowledge? Been there done that? AMEN

Regarding fiction, imagination can be a means to our seduction but without the healing of the imagination, we cannot understand much of God’s language in creation.  Without healing of the imagination, we cannot understand the language of any of the four loves.  Artists such as Tolkien and Lewis assay to that worthy task.  What keeps our imagination honest is, most basically, asceticism.  Walking out of our own will is a necessary work to which God calls each man.  If we will not exert discipline upon ourselves, we cannot grow in grace.  Do not be deceived into thinking that because salvation is by grace alone, that all are saved and that the response to grace asked of us is effortless.  Sure we don’t save ourselves but if we refuse asceticism, we refuse the medicine of salvation and the results are always spiritual delusion.
  The chief delusion of TEC is in believing it knows more than the god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob ... that TEC is, corporately, God.  Alas, the gods of the philosophers cannot save ... and in the end they behold themselves only in the goblin mirror.  But let’s not be co-dependent or messianic.  Climbing down into the pig wallow and joining the unrepentant prodigal isn’t helpful.

#220 You are absolutely correct, and your gentle correction says exactly the term I had in mind.  Thanks!!

#237 monologistos,
“It is NOT acceptable to pray with those who worship other gods.”
Monologistos I’ve been reflecting on some of the things that wrong in TEC and two ideas come to mind.  There is both a lack of discipline and a lack of due process.  If you examine article 26, it is evident that TEC has too long tolerated “evil Ministers”.  My guess is that most bishops in TEC do not even believe in evil spirits and with the lack of due process, the few have overcome the many.

Hmmmm.

Episcopalienated,
Thanks for your gracious and honest response.  And thank you Dr. Turner for such a thorough exegesis of the Greek.  This has settled my mind and heart on the course I must follow at the upcoming convention.  The call to be gay is a special call to celibacy and service.  If only TEC would return to faithful handling of the Word of God in the power of the Spirit, it could be such a blessing to our country and the world.  But you are correct in your statement that this will require a revival along the lines of the Great Awakening.  Please keep us and Bishop Lawrence in your prayers.

-Husband of thinking.

Gloria,
I don’t know what you would count as ‘reason’, but am willing to attempt to share with you what I consider to be the reasons from my hope in Christ.

Would PM be the proper way to enter into that discussion?

Mad Potter, I’m not surprised you don’t agree with me.  I think you are deluded and wrong and very repetitious.  You may go to the Devil if you wish but I won’t bless you to do so.  Note that I’m NOT saying, “Go to the Devil” here.  But let’s not pretend we are friends.  We are not. Friends travel the same road. I do pray for you from time to time but I don’t try to instruct God as to what needs repair.

Gloria, you sound a great deal like I did for the nearly 2 decades between my Roman Catholic upbringing and Jesus’ finally bringing me to an end of myself, of my knowledge, of my goodness (really only selfishness), and of any hope to climb out of the pit I had dug myself into.

To me, you are another precious soul for whom true God and true man, the Lord Jesus Christ, died to wash away our sins and rose bodily to promise us eternal life, new each day even beginning in our earthly life and fresh forever in eternity with Him in unclouded joy, and who sent the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, not to leave us orphans, to be with us to the end of the age.

All of us have some pain in our lives, past and present, some more than others.  But joy that shines even through pain and hope that defies the world’s despair and unbelief can be yours, jsut as Jesus pours them out into my heart and all believers’ hearts fresh each day.  I would literally ( ) rather die than go back to how I was before He stooped very low indeed to save me in spite of my arrogant, cold, hard self.  Know that you are in my prayers to find that same joy and hope in His sheer presence, who has counted every hair of our heads, on whose palms our names are written forever!

FWIW, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob did not see the Lord face to face; their faith was reckoned as righteousness.  I don’t suppose we are to think that Jews and Muslims today or since the Incarnation accept Jesus as does St. Peter, saying, “My Lord and my God.”  Jews and Muslims don’t worship Father, Son and Holy Spirit, one God.  If they did, they would be Christians.  They are not and their own theology explicitly rejects the understanding that Jesus is Lord God.  By both Jewish and Muslim theology, the paradox of the triune God would be simple and damnable idolatry.  I grant you it is very difficult to speak without errors of one sort or another about the Christian God ... that doesn’t mean that errors are OK.  Since man is made in God’s image, our theology of man and of the salvation offered to man is derivative of God.  It may be an “academic” exercise for those who approach God merely academically but for those whose approach to God is worship, it is all important.How is it respectful to others if we disagree with virtually everything they say yet insist we agree on everything?  Such a course of action has its birth in incoherence, it’s way in chaos, it’s end in death. Are we God, such that the words we say have being by fiat? That way lies psychosis.  The psychosis of man is precisely this ... that we believe ourselves to be the authors of our realities, prettied up with Quinian talk of a web of belief embodied in language.  Sure, today, we drop the talk about there being any “underlying reality”.  It’s all expansions of Vishnu and of course we are ourselves Vishnu dreaming ourselves, blah, blah, blah.  The most American versions of this nonsense are Mormonism where each man may evolve up through the planets until he becomes God of his own universe.  And of course TEC, where each gay man can evolve up through the orders until fully included.

Gloria, you sneer at blind faith and yet it seems to me you suffer from something far worse: willful blindness.  You see only that which you wish you see, and deny the truth whenever it challenges your assumptions.

Sadly, you fit right into TEC as it is now: the blind led by the blind.  You should be very happy there.

Gloria:

I’ve spent my entire 72 years believing in Christianity only to find out at this late stage of life that it is a lot of myths, legends and superstitions that I have been following. And that those who taught me do not themselves believe or follow the teachings they espouse.

Congratulations!

It sounds to me like yours may have been a faith worth losing.  Whether you’re 17 or 72, that’s a good thing.

Do you like Shirley Bassey at all?  Check this out.  It’s her classic rendition of “My Life.”  I can’t believe you won’t like this and it’ll be a nice break from the thread.  But then come back.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0pOAVGvePQ

Wasn’t that great?

Now, about the Episcopal Church.  Are these people crazy or what?  It’s enough to drive anybody stark staring mad!  I mean, right over the edge.  I actually have to take a Xanax before I go to Church.  How did you handle it?

But I digress.  OK, no more “myths, legends and superstitions” for you.  Well, you’ll get no argument from me.  However, now that you’ve left all that nonsense behind you may find yourself in unfamiliar territory.  You will want to be very careful.

I have this theory that God causes people to lose their faith all the time.  Yes, I’m quite serious, I blame God for it.  I think it’s His crafty way of getting our attention when nothing else works.

People who convert to Christianity hardly know whether to laugh or cry over most of the things they once believed.  Happens all the time.

Having finally cleared the decks, I suspect you may really be in for it.  If I were you, I’d be on the lookout for a frontal assault from . . . you know . . . that “higher authority” who puts his stamp of approval on Hebrew National hot dogs, among other things.

You’ll be in my prayers, but don’t be put off by that.  And if my nagging suspicions are correct, you could end up with a version of “My Life” that beats Shirley’s all to hell.

As for those annoying nabobs down at the Episcopal Church, forget about them.  When it all falls apart for me, I’m thinking of taking up with the Pentecostals, tambourines and all.  (But no snakes!)

Hey, maybe I’ll run into you at a tent revival some day.  Then we can really compare notes.

God bless

To [233]  episcopalienated

  My hubby already responded at 244(to which I concur). I just wanted to say that I agree with a statement made by John Piper—-that a lot of us want the glory of Jesus but not the cross of Jesus. I think that really says it.

Ps. I was not downplaying your reference to Matt 19—it really did help to nail some things down. I just meant, as with a lot of Scripture, it is not easy. There is a cross involved. Life is hard. ....and true discipleship is costly. It makes me think of the book by Bonhoeffer on the Cost of Discipleship—“Cheap grace is the deadly enemy of our Church. We are fighting today for costly grace….Cheap grace means grace sold on the market like cheapjacks’ wares.  The sacraments, the forgiveness of sin, and the consolations of religion are thrown away at cut prices….In such a Church the world finds a cheap covering for its sins; no contrition is required, still less any real desire to be delivered from sin.  Cheap grace therefore amounts to a denial of the living Word of God, in fact, a denial of the Incarnation of the Word of God. ......Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.”

The cross is costly and I suppose I am tempted to not want to bare the cross and I am tempted to want an easier road for fellow believers. This of course is wrong—-grace is costly, because it comes at the expense of Christ’s death and as Bonhoeffer states , “Such grace is costly because it calls us to follow, and it is grace because it calls us to follow Jesus Christ.  It is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life.”

To [199]  SjB

I ditto my post 254 to you—God bless

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!
episcopalienated, thank you for once again putting TEC in perspective:

Now, about the Episcopal Church.  Are these people crazy or what?  It’s enough to drive anybody stark staring mad!  I mean, right over the edge.  I actually have to take a Xanax before I go to Church.  How did you handle it?

Hah, Hahhh, ... hee, whew!

Before you light out for the Pentecostal hills, PM me or e-mail me and meet me at Nashville 1st Church of the Nazarene.  Nary a snake ( ) of any kind in sight!  In the meantime, go to http://www.nfcn.org/
and click on the Resources link to hear Pastor Henecke lift up Jesus and the Word so as to set your heart on fire with joy!

It’s explicitly not up to me nor am I competent to detemine who is retrobate and who is not.  One has to hope for us all.  I don’t think the conversation really continues.  It is not a conversation to repeat to one another mutually contradictory phrases over and over again.  “Branch theory” is all well and good I suppose, if you find yourself out at the end of a limb ... but the Church is also understood as the Vine and our life is in God’s Life, as we are grafted onto the Vine.  Many within TEC believe as did some of the ancient Greeks, that man is “made of God and part of God by nature”.  Christians believe God is truly other and that we are made out of nothing by an act of God.  Grafting into the Body of Christ is necessary for Christians.  It isn’t sufficient to be on your own road ... even though we do indeed forge a semblance of the Way with our sins and our delusions ... but it is a poorly made thing ... like a dresser drawer in a dream that fails to have an inside.  The perfection of man by the sanctification of the Holy Spirit holds out something different from a pantheon of gods.  It is really not explicable without the working of grace within us and I have no illusions that I am able to communicate this even to myself. We will twist the words to our own use as we are the supreme egotists and with the supreme effort, thrust away the knowledge of salvation offered and maintain the delusion at the cost of our souls.  That’s why you and I aren’t saints.  I suppose you must have suspected. That which God visits upon us next is for our salvation ... the tough love medicine, having rejected the yoke.

#228. Their name is Legion. I choose not to elaborate in this forum, but I know of whence I speak.
#229. You’re proabaly right. They are all a bunch of hypocrites, aren’t they? The Falwells, the Bakkers etc. what a disgrace! What shame they bring to name of Jesus!

Some people here who have read a lot of my posts (and there are too many of my posts), know that I spent many years away from the church.  For both of those reasons- the Episcopal Church had completely failed me, and because almost all the self-proclaimed Christians I knew were hypocrites.  What brought me back was several things.  Most important was that a few of the Christians I knew- my Mom, some of my Dad’s old clergy friends, a friend at work- were the real thing, not hypocrites.  People who not only believed, but set out daily to do the work the Lord had given them to do.  Jesus worked through them, offering me a way back into the Church.
  But in His way, Christ had been working on me for some years, so that I would be ready when the time came.  I had taken to reading some of Dad’s old books.  Oddly (or so it seems to me) perhaps the one that had the greatest impact was not some enlightening theological tome, but Hans Lietzmann’s <u>History of the Early Church</u>.  Dry and pedantic by modern standards, it gave me a window into what early Christianity was like- a connection to the beginning of the Church.  The Church stripped of its Gothic spires, and gold vestments, and professional choirs and diocesan chancellors.  When I came back into the Church, that simplicity is what I looked for, and occasionally found, mostly in small town churches, but even some in Chicago (no need to write me to ask, just look them up on the Common Cause parish finder)- churches populated with people who actually believed in Christ, people who shed tears with Mary on Good Friday, imagining their own child hanging from a cross, people for whom “He is risen” is a daily reality, not something you say only on Easter.
  That, of course, is to some extent a personal, emotional experience.  Something perhaps more concrete, more reasonable, is the historic record of the Apostolic period of the Church.  The apostles and disciples of our Lord for the most part died agonizing deaths- crucifixion, stoning, beaten to death by mobs- for the simple reason that they refused to deny the divinity of Christ, refused to stop preaching the Word. There are 4 written records that attest that Christ died and rose again.  There is no evidence to the contrary.  All the eyewitnesses to the events agree on what happened and were willing to go to their deaths rather than recant. Of course, the whole story is “scientifically impossible”.  Well yes, sure it is, IF you accept the premise that Jesus was a human being.  Now, assume a being of unlimited power in human form- is it still scientifically impossible?
  The grave error of TEC throughout my lifetime is that it defines itself, and tries to be, a church, or “this church” (as the PB is so fond of saying) rather than striving to find within itself The Church.  The One, Catholic and Apostolic Church. To put it in “Episcopalese”, in trying to be “inclusive” across social barriers, they have made “this church” exclusive historically.  In an effort to commune all in their modern universalism, they have broken communion with the saints of the historic Church.
  As is my habit, Gloria, I began by addressing this to you, and then rambled in several different directions.  I do pray that the Lord grants you peace, and in that peace, you again find the Church, the real one, the one hidden under the trappings and pretensions and hypocrisy that indeed are the hallmarks of the modern “churches”.

Thankyou, thinking and Mrs. thinking, for your words of appreciation. My arguments are set out in much more detail in several documents at this address (minus the semicolon which mysteriously appears every time):–

Spirit and Sex.

It really does all boil down to the authority of Jesus, whether we worship Him as Lord, or revere Him as the greatest of teachers. His opposition to homosex and all other forms of unchastity is virtually as solid an historical fact as His birth and death.

Thankyou, too, tjmcmahon, for your kind words about succinctness. To adapt Dr. Johnson, “Sir, depend upon it, when a (philologically-trained) woman knows that she is to wake up in the Diocese of New Westminster in the morning, it concentrates her mind wonderfully.”

Bill Witt (198) wrote:

I was told by private email this weekend that I was “not really an Anglican,”

LOL! Yeh, Bill, you are not really an Anglican. Just like Hooker wasn’t. Just like Taylor wasn’t. Just like Law wasn’t. Just like Herbert wasn’t. Just like Akinola or Orombi or Venables aren’t, etc., etc. Please do keep on being “not really an Anglican,” thank you.

Re: Your post in 209. Thanks for your continuing good work here. Keep taking Woodward to task and exposing his dishonest and specious thinking. As I read his posts, I am almost embarrassed for him because he continues to display slipshod logic and near chaotic thought. Then again, I guess that is what qualifies him to espouse the sloppy theology he does.

While I know your posts will not change his mind, they are a clear demonstration to reasonable readers of the stark choice that the two competing gospels offer.

OK:
I’ve had enough!
#232 Thank you for your kind expressions toward me. I do not think that I am right and others are wrong. I just don’t any longer believe as others do and I am entitled to my own views as are they. My questions to them are also those I ponder for myelf.
#246. I don’t want to discuss. Don’t know what your PM is and don’t want to know.
#252. Boy you are a typical judgmental Christian full of hot air and your own self deception. You are the blind one following in blind faith. You won’t even question what you say you believe. Not too bright. You only serve to make you dislike your ilk even more.
#253 No thanks. Don’t want to meet you. I have no patience with your kind either.Goodbye.
Goodbye all. I’m nonsubscribing right now.

260]  Dr. Priscilla Turner

Hi—can you try giving us the link again—it says it can not be found!!

260 Dr. Turner—-sorry—I found the semicolon and got rid of it and it worked!!

TO #131 GSP98
You said:  “130, thank you for posting that link. Some of the photos from the transgendered march are horribly disturbing. How I feel for such wretched souls. And how I shudder when I contemplate whats coming down the pike if such a grotesque public display is deemed acceptable by society at large.  “As it was in the days of Noah…”
The link I provided was http://www.massresistance.com
My Rely:
That wasn’t a transgender march…that was the “Gay Pride Parade” which I call the “Shame Parade” because I am sure the parents and families of those people don’t want to admit that its their kid.
That was nothing compared to what the LGBT section of SanFrancisco was like at Halloween for years.  It got so bad that the last year or two Halloween celebrations have been banned there…to much violence & depravity for even a place like SanFrancisco to tolerate anymore.  Even though the mayor of SanFrancisco thought having public group sex and sex slave flogging on our public streets (in front of children)should be tolerated during the Gay Pride Parade, the Halloween party was eventually terminated…not so much because of the depravity of it all but because of the cost of so many police and emergency help, the crime, and the fact that even some of the GLBT people who lived there eventually didn’t want it on their doorstep because of the damage.  There is also a big party (pay to attend) at Halloween every year that is promoted by the LGBT community, porn stars, and prostitutes where clothing is optional, there are contests for various catagories such as the best transgender costume.  It would be fair to say that the party has the same lack of decency that the Gay Pride Parade has.  In fact, the Gay Pride Parade is so bad that even some homosexuals denounce it because they say that it harms how gays are viewed by others.  They feel that if they keep what they do in private out of the public mind people won’t be so repulsed by them.  Good luck.  If any LGBT or those who support their lifestyle tries to get near a kid of mine…they will regret it.

I feel that the reason some heterosexuals don’t view it as a threat to their way of life is because they are depraved themselves.  They start out with soft porn thinking of it as “not so bad” and then it progresses downhill from that until anything goes.  I consider porn to be adultery and the same as promoting paying for sex (prostitution) therefore it would give me just cause to file for divorce.  My hubby understands and knows that once you lower your standards there is no low that you might not fall too.  Its a matter of society becoming “unshocked and numb” because they have viewed depravity so often that it isn’t unfamiliar, surprising, or shocking anymore.  What you allow yourself to see and think about determines what kind of a person you will be.  Can’t put horrible things in your brain without horrible things coming out of it.  I think thats what happened to those who worked in the death camps for Hitler.
Another thing…I often assist people who suffer from Alzheimers or dementia of some type.  During such diseases you have no control over what you remember or don’t remember anymore…or what your brain may recall or make out of what you recall.  I always say that I wouldn’t want something in my brain that I wouldn’t want to come back and haunt me…as it could if you get Alzheimers.

#259 TJ,
“Some people here who have read a lot of my posts (and there are too many of my posts)”
Great Testimony and good post as usual!

MP, from where I stand, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is increasingly nothing but folk art for the folks in TEC.  I don’t belittle the impulse to hail the Lord as God but I suggest that there are spiritual entities other than God that may be invited into the human situation.  Certainly, it is likely problematic to believe we can call upon the Lord by calling him Bob.  It is also problematic to assume that God will accept an offering to Himself, calling upon the Christian title, that is wrong.  For instance, you can kill your brother and call it an act of worship to the Christian God but God will not accept it as such.  God does not rape and thus coersion, whether by the Spanish Inquisition or “well-intended” torture of Gitmo inmates, is not of God.It may be that Schori believes she is righteous in her campaign of lawsuits and her re-imagining of Christianity. Perhaps she believes she honored her mother by refusing her a burial out of her own church and by mocking her choice of worship at the funeral within the homily. Satan has corrupted better men before Schori.

To adapt Dr. Johnson, “Sir, depend upon it, when a (philologically-trained) woman knows that she is to wake up in the Diocese of New Westminster in the morning, it concentrates her mind wonderfully.”

Dr. Turner, I also find that it concentrates one’s mind to awaken in the diocese of Northern Michigan, which will put forward only one candidate for bishop at its convention, who, along with his literary achievements (Affimations of N. Michigan), has completed 2 of the 5 steps in the Buddhist ordination process. 
http://themcj.com/?p=2313

“We affirm the theological truth that we are always already one in God; otherwise we would not be.“What rubbish.  This may be Buddhism but it’s not Christianity.  And what a sad twist on the Christian understanding of “being as communion”.  If we are already one in God, we certainly don’t need a Church and we don’t need this wannabe bishop.

Thank you Deacon Dale.  I stopped looking at the number of my own posts when it went into 4 figures.  Hopefully I have not hit 10,000 yet.  Luckily Lent is only a few weeks away, so I can take a break.

I prefer the term False Teacher to describe Shori…

TO #181 Dr. Priscilla Turner

You said:
“It might be construed either as “one who (-ης, the suffix) lies (κoίτα-, from κεῖμαι, a verbal) with men (ἀρσεvo-, a noun)”...
The fact is that κεῖμαι tout court no more suggests genital relations than do English expressions such as “lie”, “sleep”, “go to bed”, “spend the night” tout court (unless we count “lay” and “get laid”!).
My Reply:
This is another case of Biblical text taken out of contest with the rest of the Bible.  Anyone who claims to know the Bible well…much less someone who claims to be as educated as you say you are sees this immediately.  Throughout the Bible where the term “lie with” is used it always refers to having sexual relations…which is clear when taken in context with the rest of the surrounding text or chapter.  It also may refer to either a man or a woman having sexual relations.  It is often used to explain that conception occured such as when Abraham lay with his wife’s maid for the purpose of producing a child because his wife was old and therefore without a miracle from God was not likely to produce children. 
I consider this just another example of someone trying to twist the Bible around and try to find a way to make it say something it doesn’t really because he/she doesn’t want the Bible to disagree with their opinion/desires/political agenda.  Maybe you should learn how to read the Tora if you haven’t already.

Here is another victory for TEC:
http://www.jacksonville.com/community/mandarin_sun/2009-01-24/story/all_souls_congregation_looks_for_permanent_home

#271 Mad Potter,
“And this is why I feel comfortable with the SFIF style book..  using less than respectful names for clergy.”  What does this statement mean? Do you mean to say that you feel uncomfortable with less than respectful names or it’s OK with you?

Unlike Bishop Iker allowing All Saints Fort Worth to vote, TEC Bishop Howard just shoved All Soul’s out of their parish.

Dcn Dale (#275)

I’m pretty sure he meant “... uncomfortable..”  Not sure why he’s got his tail in a knot over something as benign as “Schori,” when other designations (“Marcionite,” e.g.,) are far less complimentary. 

Maybe he’s going on the theory of ex opera operatum?  I.e., If we respect Katie’s office enough, maybe we’ll start to believe that she isn’t a heretic? 

Nite-nite.

#277 Moot,
Thanks for the translation.
ditto on the Nite-nite (This may seem odd since I’m in CA but I get up at 4a X7.)
Blessings

Dear #271…
Titles, eh?  Since I , in conscience, cannot recognize Dr. Schori as a priest or a bishop, let alone deacon…I cannot refer to her as a Presiding Bishop.  Presiding “Lay Deaconess”(a la REC) or Presiding Officer is the farthest I dare go.  Since the worthiness of the minister does not “unmake” an ordination, I don’t have the luxury of “unmaking” in my mind the many heretical male clergy in the present or in history…as the Church traditionally rejects Donatism.  I “feel comfortable”, as you say, only using “Dr.” Jefferts-Schori, as it is academically given.  The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church has NOT always and everywhere accepted, received, or believed in the female episcopate, presbyterate, or diaconate…it has yet to…it probably will not.  The Vincentian Canon remains and refutes said claim Dr. Schori or TEC make for WO…they wish to create it by precedent and impose it.  I do not in conscience accept this as valid…and 1.5-1.75 billion Christians do not, either.

Blessings…TXThurifer

TO 199 SjB
I think that your comments were some of the best that I have read on this web site.  Thank you.

#193 Dave B
I agree with you.  And what is TEC?  There are so many terms such as that are used on this web site that I am not familiar with.  Many use the term SF…which is the term that people in my area would think means San Francisco!  And I am sure that isn’t what it means when people on this web site use it. 

As for the text

To #184 Old Lady
You said: “If you want to opt out of receiving the replies you can do that either at the time of your posting by unchecking the box that says “Notify me of follow-up comments” or by clicking a link on the email you receive with each reply.  There is not a way to get ONLY the replies to your specific comments.”
My reply:
I eventually figured that out…and corrected it.  But thank you for trying to help me.

#281, TEC is a place people go in a handbasket.  Ironically, people used to go straight to TEC without passing GO but now there’s nothing straight about it.

Thanks, Take Action.

#279, I think of Schori as the House Secretary.

FWIW it is worth pondering in what sense Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the “same” God. They share the story of Abraham - but is it actually “the same” story. So that even to talk of “the God of Abraham” being “the same” may be slightly misleading). For orthodox Christians the Trinity is essential to the being of God. Can one speak of the Father in Christian theology, without noting that he is the Father of the Son, and that the Spirit proceeds from him. For Jews and Muslims, this is claim is untruthful. So there is a deep sense in which Jews and Muslims disagree with Christians about who God is.

Clasically all three faiths have affirmed the simplicity of God (no composition in God). Perhaps we should begin to seek commonalities at this level - so that we will begin to find similarities and differences, influences and refractions, rather than “sameness”. (Again FWIW David Burrell has done good work on Aquinas and Islamic thought).

Take action, TEC is The Episcopal Church, but I also call it “The Episcopal Communion.”  SF is StandFirm in Faith shortened.

I consider this just another example of someone trying to twist the Bible around and try to find a way to make it say something it doesn’t really because he/she doesn’t want the Bible to disagree with their opinion/desires/political agenda.

I’m sorry, take action: you mean well, but this must be withdrawn. I have a reputation both as a Christian and as a scholar which I will not surrender.

You have read what I have written on this thread with insufficient care. Perhaps it would all be clearer to you if you went into the link supplied above, subtracting the semicolon that pops up whatever I do, and read with care the whole of the last article linked on that page.

I read the Bible in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. In my doctoral dissertation on the Old Greek of Ezekiel I wrote a grammar and lexicon for that book. There are no secular texts in which κεῖμαι has a coital sense, but of course plenty of Greek Biblical ones. This is because שכב ‘I lie’ followed by Hebrew for ‘with’ normally means coitus, and nearly always means male penetration. I am saying that it is precisely because of the peculiar semantic twist contained in the usual Greek rendering of this Hebrew that we can be certain that St. Paul intended to allude to Lev. 18 and 22 in using his rare compound. Many moderns do not know enough Greek or Hebrew to acknowledge this. They thus arrive at a sense disconnected with anything that modern urbane civilised people ever do, or think of doing.

What precisely is it to which you think I am disobedient?

TO #183 Moot
1)  SF moderator?  What does SF stand for?  People on this web site often use abbreviations that I don’t know. Where I live SF means “San Francisco” which I am sure is not what it means on this web site…ie SF moderator. (I know what a moderator is)
2)What are “threads” and how do you create one?
3)I found this web site recently because I was looking for particular kinds of religious web sites.  I never came online because I hoped to make friends which you imply(although maybe that is possible).  I was looking for intelligent stimulation/discussion/reading on the subject of religion and perhaps some additional knowledge/learning where the people online believe in the authority of the Bible, etc.  When or if that does not occur…or if I get bored…I will move on.  I constantly continue finding other web sites, books, churches, etc. on what interests me.  Maybe I will stay at this site a long time…maybe not.  I go where I feel like going.  This web site is not the only web site I look at nor the only thing that I do to fill my mind with info, things I might not have thought about, exchange ideas, etc.
4)  You asked am I suggesting that my own interests are more important than what interests a SF moderator because I mentioned some of my own interests.  No, that is not what I was intending to say.  What I meant was that I have absolutely no interest in fiction and consider it a waste of time…and have other interests.  If someone discusses things that I am not interested in, I will just go to another comment or another web site or read a book on something more interesting to me.  I made a comment about an actor in a movie that was misunderstood by some that read it…and the reply to me was misunderstood/unclear to me…and I was berated for not understanding the answer.  Therefore I have no interest in ever reading comments or communicating with that person again.  I have better things to do.  That is what I was referring too.
5) I got fed up with the “automatic feature” of the web site and turned it off so no more emails are sent to me.  Someone else online was kind enough to explain to me how the feature works…but I had already “terminated” it before the explanation.
6) Just for your info…so maybe you understand where I’m coming from…I was raised in a religious family, attended Christian schools and colleges as well as public colleges.  In school we had Bible class every day.  In boarding school we had religious worship twice a day.  I attended church almost every week as I grew up.  I love reading and read pretty much every book in the library and every religious book I got my hands on.  I for the most part have the whole Bible (old and new testament) memorized but often have to look up what book of the Bible or text it came from. (I didn’t memorize the begots)  I also have an interest in attending the Jewish synogogue and learning how to read the Torah.  I look into the teachings of many churches and have read about most religions and ideas simply because I wanted to be sure that the Bible was definately what I believe in (or not)and the right religion…and how could I know for sure unless I knew about all of them?  This web site is of interest to me simply because of the subject matter.
7)Trust me, I don’t want to read Sarah Hey’s online comments to other people or communicate with her in any way.  She is not the kind of person that I could have an intersting conversation with, gain info/knowledge from, or enjoy knowing.  She can go her way and I will go mine.  If she sends me a message, I will not read it.  I don’t have to communicate with every person on the web and they don’t have to communicate with me if they don’t want too.
8) My mother’s side of the family lived in Europe and went through the Hitler wars…running from the Russians, going from country to country, were in refugee and concentration camps, etc.  Doctors sponsored them to come to the USA when my mom was an adult.  My father is Cherokee native american, from the south, grew up in terrible poverty…moved to California where he met my mom…and was able to make a good living here.  I have lived in several states and have traveled through about 1/2 of the USA.  Persecution, hardship, etc. are not strangers to my family and are not something we would be shocked to have occur in our lives because we stand up for what we believe in and what is right.  Verbal jousting?  I laugh.  Thats nothing compared to what my family has endured.  I don’t think that she has the power that Hitler had.  Nor could she manage to convert a native american.  And I am a pretty good judge of people right off the bat because of my background…and know what kind of people I don’t want to get to know, talk to, or associate with.  I have done a lot of things in life…including working a hot line for domestic violence, suicide, child abuse, rape, etc.  I did not fear to go out in the middle of the night to stand up to dangerous men in domestic violence situations…get the woman (and children) to safety, and take her/them to a safe house and provide counseling, access to services, etc.  And you expect me to fear Sarah Hey?  I don’t ever fear people…especially if I know that what I am doing/saying is correct in the eyes of God.  If I lose access to this web site because of something I say then the web site isn’t worth having access too.  I have tried to be mindful of the language I use and believe me…I have held back and restated things before sending them seeking to not be “to rude, etc.” not because I fear being kicked off of the web site but because I believe it is the right thing to do.

So maybe I’ll stay for awhile or maybe I’ll go.  Depends on if the discussion is intersting and a few other things.  But either way, thanks for trying to give me a “heads up” because I know that you mean well and its nice that you cared enough to try to warn me.  And if I return to this web site again or not…I wish you the peace of God which surpasses understanding in all situations.

#273, ha, you tangled with someone who actually knows what she is talking about in this regards.  You cannot use a tool like Strongs and make up for not actually knowing any of the languages involved.

TO #279 TxThurifer
I am one of the 1.75 billion who don’t believe in women priests, ministers, rabbi’s, etc. either.  Count me in.

TO #290
I don’t use “Strongs”...I attend the Jewish synogogue where I can learn how to read the Torah for myself…and if I don’t know how to read something…I can ask someone who does know.

By the way, I am not trying to “tangle” with anybody.  I am deciding who is or is not worth “listening” to (or rather read their posts) depending on if what they say is a valid arguement or not (in my opinion), especially when they claim to be an expert.  Bear in mind that the simple fact that someone is a female priest, minister, pastor, rabbi, etc. leads me to be suspicious because I have never been convinced that the Bible endorses allowing women in that kind of a position.  What others believe is up to them.  The Bible says to study and be convinced in your own mind as to what is true, right, etc.  Not just accept what your told.  Besides that, you can’t really believe in or stand up for anything or live anything unless you are personally convinced in your own mind that its right.  I will decide who I believe has the authority, knowledge, if they have an “agenda”, etc. when making my determination as to who I will or will not listen too…and whether I take their arguement/stand on a position or matter seriously…or if it is correct or true.  And I am sure that others do the same regarding me and everybody else.  However, I do not claim to be an “expert” or “church leader” of any kind.  What I claim is that I try to be very knowledgeable because I am seeking to understand and know truth and put on the armor of God.  And I am sure that others who do not always agree with my conclusions may feel that they are convinced in their own minds as to what is right/true as well.  But…convincing the heart is the job of the Holy Spirit.  And studying scripture is the way to find out what the will of God is.  And sometimes looking at a subject from all perspectives makes you more convinced of your position and sometimes it opens you up to expand your knowledge or alter what you think a bit.  Just remember the rules:
Rule #1:  God is always right.  Rule #2: If you think you know better than God, refer to rule #1 just to save yourself from messing up and having to finally admit that rule #1 is correct.

To Bo
I received a “personal email” from you that I did not open.  If you have something to say please say it in the discussion group/forum/whatever you call it.  I have put all emails from this web site in my spam/delete box automatically because the number of emails was to great and also to protect myself regarding computer viruses.

I asked you how you knew what animals were in the sheet, as they’re not listed in the text.

I no longer care to know your reply.

Take Action,

Sarah Hey is a moderator of this site.

SF = Stand Firm.

I am also a moderator of this site. I have been quite occupied lately with parish business so I’ve not had the time to pay close attention. However, after having reviewed your comments here I have the following observation.

Your overall rudeness toward long-time commenters and especially toward those more learned than yourself (Dr. Turner for example) is both distracting to our readers and embarrassing for you.

You are a guest here. Posting privileges are given or removed at our discretion. So here is the deal:

The rudeness will stop or your posting privileges will be removed.

This is your only warning.

Gloria (if you’re still around):

#253 No thanks. Don’t want to meet you. I have no patience with your kind either.Goodbye.

That’s perfectly OK.  Patience with my kind isn’t what you need right now.  My hope for you is that you will have patience with yourself.

Milton:

If my comment gave you a laugh, then it was worthwhile.  But I must be crazy too because I’m still not ready to leave the asylum behind.

Of course, people do break out of this place all the time and one of these days I might go over the wall.  Stranger things have happened.  When and if the time comes, I’ll give you and the Nazarene Church some thought.

Remember that online religion quiz everyone was taking a while back?  This extremely spikey Anglo-Catholic got his high score in the “Evangelical Holiness” category, whatever that means.

While I’m sifting through all this, do try to have patience with “my kind.”  I don’t need that sort of thing from just anybody but it sure does come in handy from the right people.

I’m quite certain you’re one of those.

RE:  “SF moderator?  What does SF stand for?”

StandFirm Moderator.  ‘StandFirm’ is a nickname for this site, and ‘SF’ is how we abbreviate it. 

RE:  “What are “threads” and how do you create one? “

A thread is what we are writing on, right now.  At the time I write these words, this particular thread (“Virginia Goes Over The Brink”) has almost 300 comments.

RE:  “I found this web site recently because I was looking for particular kinds of religious web sites.”

Again, not a religious website.  More on this in a bit. 

RE:  “I never came online because I hoped to make friends which you imply(although maybe that is possible).”

I certainly hope it is possible. 

RE:  “You asked am I suggesting that my own interests are more important than what interests a SF moderator because I mentioned some of my own interests.”

I was teasing.  Actually, this is part of the point I was attempting to make.  StandFirm moderators have the right to initiate threads (or online conversations, if you will).  We do not.  StandFirm moderators have the right to initiate off-topic (“OT”, for short) comments and threads, whereas we do not. 

This is the point I was trying to get across, but failed to do up until now:  You and I as commenters do not have the power of, let’s call it, “life and death,” on this site.  Other sites (e.g., http://www.reformed.org) will give commenters more autonomy, and the role of the moderator there is to be a bouncer of sorts. 

Not so here. 

I used to comment on “religious sites” where there was more autonomy, and eventually gave them up.  I actually like StandFirm’s (again, “SF,” for short) stricter commenting policies. 

RE:  “I got fed up with the “automatic feature” of the web site and turned it off”

Okay, then you understand that it’s an –automatic- feature, so you can hardly blame the –automatic- feature for a person’s lack of competence. 

RE:  “Just for your info…so maybe you understand where I’m coming from…”

I’d love to hear more about your background, only in tiny bits and pieces, and over the next few years. 
RE:  “Trust me, I don’t want to read Sarah Hey’s online comments to other people or communicate with her in any way.”

That’s funny, because when I skim a large thread, I’ll always read her comments.  She’s brilliant, talented, and funny.  And come to think of it, were I a single man, I’d be trying to figure out ways to ask her out on a date (Fortunately ....for Sarah, that is… God has already blessed me with another exceptional woman.    ). 

In all seriousness, Sarah is a huge blessing to conservative Anglicans in North America.  If you’ve read a lot, then no doubt you’ve heard of the late conservative apologist William F. Buckley?  Sarah was commended by Buckley. 

RE:  “My mother’s side of the family lived in Europe and went through the Hitler wars…running from the Russians, going from country to country, were in refugee and concentration camps, etc.”

I’d love to hear about it sometime.  Just be sure it’s on-topic, if you post it on SF. 

RE:  “So maybe I’ll stay for awhile or maybe I’ll go.”

I hope you stick around. 

Hey episcopalianated! 

Tell you what - If you ever come back to your old digs, we’ll cruise for parishes.  We can start at a very charismatic (but surprisingly orthodox) Church of Christ I know of, and work our way over to the OPC.  The OPC is actually a bit liturgical and has some refugees from the more ancient sections of Christendom.  We’d probably want to leave our tamberines in the car, however.   

Of course, I’m still with my struggling TEC parish.  So far, I haven’t been released from its struggles, or its blessings.

take action:
If you do not want 100s of emails from standfirm that is easy enough- set up your profile so that it does not send you comments.  Or, even easier “uncheck” the little box below the submit button that says “notify me of follow-up comments”- if it is checked, you will get every comment made on the thread.  You will also not if you open 1 of the emails, that there is a link that allows you to stop comments from a particular thread.
  Meanwhile, what I think the moderators are trying to get across to you is that the key to respectful disagreement is respect.

RE: “If someone discusses things that I am not interested in, I will just go to another comment or another web site or read a book on something more interesting to me.”

Actually, if someone discusses something that Take Action knows absolutely nothing about—like a statement from a book—Take Action bloviates about it, revealing his profound ignorance.

RE: “I made a comment about an actor in a movie . . . “

Nope—Take Action made a comment about a statement from a book that another commenter quoted, and then assigned that quote to a movie actor rather than the author of the book, where it belonged.  When this was pointed out to him he became angrier and attempted to dig himself out of the error through bluster.

In fact, that is only one example of many potential examples in this thread of Take Action’s rather inflated vision of his own knowledge and resulting ignorant comments based on that inflated vision.

A sad thing.  This man is perhaps a Christian believer, and he strews the world with his ignorance so that the pagans may laugh and mock the ignorance.

Of note, Dr. Turner is no priest or minister.  She is merely a woman with an immense IQ and fluency in numerous languages—languages that it is quite clear that Take Action is not fluent in at all.

#298 and 299 Moot and TJ,
Thanks with your patience and helpful guidance to “Take Action”.  If you folks were at my church I would ask you both to be official greeters.  My guess is that each of you make a point of seeking out visitors to your respective churches and helping them feel welcome.
Blessings.

Sarah Hey,
If I may,  While Dr. Turner may not be ordained to the ministry, nor hold official office or authority, she is a minister.  Her work and comments here are a ministry.  Like who minister to the hungry by serving meals they themselves have prepared, she ministers to those of us who are unlearned by serving morsels of knowledge she has struggled to gain.

As one of those in the Anti-WO camp, I feel an especial need to publicly recognize that neither ordination nor authority are needed for effective ministry to God’s Church.

Dcn Dale (#301)

I appreciate the kind words, but the reality is that I’m not so different from take action. 

Take Action…

From the looks of things (see #300), there is actually a verbal jousting match between you and Sarah,
and she just won.  Or rather, she had won and is reasserting her win. 

This is what I was talking about before - you don’t want to throw down a glove in front of
Sarah and wait around for her to pick it up.  You threw it down, she picked it up, and she
beat you in short order.  Best thing you can do now is to smile, offer a self-depracating
remark, and withdraw from the jousting match.  Or, just withdraw from the match and no one
will think less of you for doing so. 

But don’t withdraw from SF, though.  Just the match. 

So much has been said and done against the homosexual. However, the heterosexual community is now finding itself challenged in a way it never expected. This is because so many of us have been led to believe that things such as debauchery, lasciviousness, or even pedophilia are synonomous with homosexuality. Such is not the case. There are and always have been those homosexuals who are productive, Christ like, self actualized adults. I am glad to see Virginia lead the way in allowing homosexuals the opportunity to grow in love the way God ordained it to be; that is in oneness. Yes “in the beginning He made them male and female to become one flesh” and this model is what is being followed even by those in the gay and lesbian community. The players may have changed but the game and the rules( which have not been whole heartedly followed by the heterosexual community) remain the same. Sometimes the law may be ammended though ” it can not be broken.” May God help us all as “one nation , under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.”

Folks, we’ve reached our unofficial “limit” of 300 comments, so I’ll be closing it off in a couple of hours. Get your comments in before then!

#304 Raphael,

I appreciate your comments and am glad to see you here today.  I cannot speak for SF’ers as a group, but I personally as a conservative Christian, hopefully Orthodox, would never deny God’s blessing on any person, nor would I question the idea that a homosexual person can be productive, Christ-Like, or self-actualized adults.

What I do deny, is that God blesses same sex relationships, be they monogamous or not.  I also deny those that would say that there is any repeatable scientific evidence that sexual preference is biologically determined from birth (i.e. “I was born this way”).  There is none.  In fact, the latest studies in “Nature” indicate that 50% of females who claimed lesbian orientation before age 21 had comfortably entered hetero relationships when they were re-surveyed at age 30 or older.

The Diocese of Virginia has declared itself apostate by embracing and celebrating Sin.  Much as TEC has by funding abortions through the RCRC.  Remember the origins of the word apostate mean “to rebel”.  Virginia has rebelled against what Christianity has accepted as God’s command for nigh on 3,000 years. 

The “Love” we are called to grow does not have its nature or origin in human relationships at all.  In my 47 years of life so far, I have learned this myself, the hard way.  All love flows from God, to us, to be distributed among our fellow man has HE has decided it should be.  We are not authorized to re-define His laws, as far as I can tell.  On those occasions when I have done so myself, many have suffered at my hands.

Remember, Christians are called to love the sinner, and abhor the sin (Go and sin no more—-Jesus).

God Bless You, and KTF!...mrb

#304 RARHAEL,
I would second Mike Bertaut’s comments to you and add this question. What is the point of this comment “Hmmmm”. on post #243?

Raphael, sadly there is not and cannot be any ‘union’ between people of the same sex, for reasons of biology and physiology. To desire such a ‘union’ is to want what is not to be had. Such a desire is not a mark of good sense or maturity. That’s why the vast majority of people eventually grow out of it, and view any past experiences of same-sex physical love as at best a matter of adolescent messing about, best regretted, confessed and forgotten.

Thankyou, Raphael, for your PM. The fact remains that homosex is (a) visibly unnatural and (b) un-Christian in the most basic sense, because it is contrary to the teaching and example of the Lord Jesus Christ.

This would be so even if it could be shown that the Lord, His Apostles and the Fathers had no conception of homosexual ‘orientation’. In fact they did have such a conception, and the notion that they did not is a modern myth.

What an amazing thread.  There certainly is nothing I could add to it, except that to witness the meltdown of Gloria was intense and sobering.  How terrifying to find yourself alone in the universe.  I hope she finds some peace.  Godspeed, Gloria.

GoodMissMurphy:

What an amazing thread. There certainly is nothing I could add to it, except that to witness the meltdown of Gloria was intense and sobering. How terrifying to find yourself alone in the universe. I hope she finds some peace. Godspeed, Gloria.

Bless you!  “Terrifying” is very much the right word.  I hope all the thread participants will lift this dear woman up in fervent prayer.

I really do also hope that her loss of “faith” provides the occasion that the Hound of Heaven has been waiting for to catch up with her.  Thankfully, God does some of His best work with unbelievers.  Otherwise there wouldn’t be any Christians.

Which is more frightening—imagining that you will be forever forgotten by an uncaring universe, or hoping that you will be?  I remember what that’s like and it makes my blood run cold.

I think I still recognize a breaking heart when I see one.  May God have mercy on us all and guide Gloria safely home.  And may He break our hearts too, but for better reasons.

Moot:

That Church-hopping excursion certainly sounds enticing.  Believe it or not, I actually visited a Church of Christ once.  But I was so distracted by a woman wearing a leopard skin coat with a matching pillbox hat that I couldn’t stay focused on the service.

So if we go to one of those, it might be a good idea to sit on the front row.  I simply can’t be trusted and you never know who‘s going to show up wearing what.  Let’s just hope the minister doesn’t decide to wear his sharkskin suit that Sunday.  If he does, there goes the sermon!

Of course you’re still at your TEC parish and of course it’s struggling.  We’re Episcopalians, it’s what we do.  We “struggle.”  But I’ve never seen a woman wearing leopard skin in one of our churches.  And for the clergy, it’s all basic black under those vestments.

See, it’s not all bad.  The Episcopal Church welcomes you, just don’t push the envelope with any really edgy fashion statements.  We’re Protestant but we’re not that Protestant.

Rotfl, episcopalienated. And prayers for Gloria that the seed of hope and life will be planted deep in her heart and flourish there.