A New Frontier For TEC?

This blog has gone beyond the pale of stupidity. What sort of mind would post this here?

Yeah Scottchicago. We all know that no one in TEC would EVER affirm a sexual preference that deviant.

Actually, I tend to agree with Scott on this one.  This is a little over the top.  I don’t see the point in attributing every vile thing that comes across the internet to TEC.  It tends to undervalue the very real wrongs that TEC is actually doing, and undermines the credibility of this blog.

Bait applied.  Bait taken.  Hook ‘em and Cook ‘em!

KTF!...mrb

Furryists!!!11!!Eleventy!!

Hi Jamesw,

Jackie did not “attribute” this particular “vile thing” to TEC. She simply wrote: “New Frontier for TEC” and concluded with a question mark—as in: could this be the next “new thing”

Personally, I do not at all see such things as future impossibilities for the “church” that embraces already one form of sexual perversion and whose bishops participate without censure in “Pride” parades which specialize “vile things” and extreme lewdness

Matt:  I realize that she did not say that TEC actually does this thing.  By “attribute” I meant that she is suggesting that this will be the next thing TEC will do.  Do you really think that the next thing that TEC does will advocate sex with animals?  I think not.  If you want to see the next thing TEC will advocate, just consult the next thing that the secular liberals advocate, and that’s where you will find it.

Don’t get me wrong, I agree with you that TEC engages in all sorts of nonsense, and that the Boston service for the murdered abortionist just tops the list.  My argument is that bringing this kind of stuff up just undermines StandFirm’s credibility.

What do you get out of it?  Some cheap laughs.  It’s just not worth it.

I am sickened SF would allow this here and use such trickery as the title posted to acquire readers. At the very least put a graphic warning on the title for those that do not wish to read such vile, disgusting garbage.

This is not cricket. As disgusting as TEC has become, let’s not drag ourselves into the mud by wondering aloud if beastiality will be their next crusade (no pun intended). There is enough ammunition to go around and shoot holes in their dying, liberal, elitist country club.
Not good form Jackie. Pretty pathetic actually. There really is no need to stoop this low. And Matt, using TEC’s disgusting behavior to justify shocking people into seeing our way doesn’t wash. Like I said, there is plenty of ammunition and no need for this trash on this wonderful site.

Crusader44

WOW! Such admonitions!

This post demonstrates what I love about this site.  The level of absurdity of comment #6 makes you guys the laughing stock of the Christian community.

[7] jamesw,

In saying that Jackie is expressly

suggesting that this will be the next thing TEC will do

I think you are going beyond what is clearly implied as a question to infer one of what are actually several possible interpretations. Mine would, of course, be an incorrect evaluation if you are a proponent of what I seem to recall is referred to as Johnson’s Law. If this latter is in fact the case, I will cheerfully admit to standing corrected.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

Dear ScottChicago, the same twisted, perverted pseudo-arguments proposed for the acceptance, affirmation, and blessing of homosexual practice can easily be used for bestiality, pedophilia, pederasty, necrophilia, and a host of other perversions. It takes only a bit more twisting to get to approval of pedophilia.

An inch at a time, friend. An inch at a time.

A friend of mine was in the Middle East recently. When he told someone that he is Episcopalian, he was shown a clipping from an Arabic-language newspaper with a photo of a bride in a wedding dress standing next to a very large dog, both of them standing in front of a fully vested bishop. He was told that this was a woman-dog wedding being conducted by a TEC bishop.

Just a few years ago, reports of homosexual “wedding” ceremonies being conducted in an Episcopal church would have made me laugh. How absurd! Excellent satire. Nowadays if I heard tomorrow that a California bishop had conducted the blessing of a person-dog couple, I’d just sigh.

Needless to say, he and I have both searched the internet to see if the TEC woman-dog wedding actually happened. We believe that the picture was Photoshopped. But the sad fact of the matter is that I’m not 100% sure.

The unfortunate aspect of the present story is that it doesn’t tell us the sex of the two dogs. One of each, perhaps.

Jackie may well have posted this with tongue-in-cheek, but I see it as a real possibility unless conservative forces within and external to TEC keep the pressure on.

#13, that you would think that the photo was real shows how out of touch you are with the Episcopal Church.

I thought the SF threads over the weekend on the abortionist murder were over the top, too, and posted so on one of them, although my message was, in retrospect, too low-key.  Then the Boston TEO “cathedral” completely outgrossed those threads.  Posters on this thread whose sensitivities are jarred by overt discussions of bestiality should look at the resolutions being presented to GC09, which affirm every such practice by condemning nothing.  The resolution language is very carefully “inclusive” of things most don’t care to imagine. Take a printout of one of the “inclusive” resolutions, a printout of the above story, and wave it in the face of those still in TEO.  Most posters on here have either seen that train coming for a long time, or already walked out of the station (like I did).

Have any of you demurrers to this thread actually read any of the resolutions proposed to, or already passed by, Diocesan Conventions and/or General Convention? I seem to recall that it was the Diocese of North Carolina (or one of them, if there are several) which, in the last year or so, adopted a resolution that states that all baptized persons should be included in all levels of the church’s leadership “without regard to sexual orientation.” If you track that resolution down, you will note that there are absolutely no restrictions other than the two I have stated—the person must be (a) human and (b) baptized. I assume that the dead are excluded because, as best I understand Scripture, they have NO sexual orientation, and are certainly incapable of actively living it out.

The last time I checked, bestiality was just as much a “sexual orientation” as is heterosexuality, homosexuality, pædophilia, necrophilia (and the list, in all probability, goes on a considerable distance from those). Given that wording, what is there in resolutions so worded that causes you to assume that such so-called inclusive tolerance has any limits? If you can provide some evidence that the answer to this question is not “NONE,” I will be pleased to reconsider, but I doubt that anyone here is sufficiently more linguistically talented than I that they can manufacture such evidence from the available adopted resolutions that already exist. Otherwise, you just might want to climb down from your steed, as it is patently too tall for you.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

I guess the concept of hyperbole is lost on some.

Sigh.

Frank Kameny, a hero to the homosexual community who was integral in pressuring the American Psychiatric Association to reclassify same-sex activities as “normal,” has written to a pro-family organization that he believes bestiality is fine, “as long as the animal doesn’t mind.”

In a weekend letter to Americans for Truth, an organization dedicated to revealing the truth about homosexuality, Kameny also said there is no such thing as “sexual perversion.”

“Absolutely indisputably a central part of the very definition of Americanism is the guarantee, found in the Declaration of Independence, as not merely a Right, but as an Inalienable Right, of the ‘Pursuit of Happiness,’” he wrote. “If something which someone arbitrarily defines as a ‘sexual perversion’ provides happiness for consenting adult participants, then its enjoyment is enshrined in basic Americanism.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=66060
Of course, Keith makes an excellent point about Johnson’s law.
For those who believe we should not discuss the possibilities of where the yellow brick road can lead, I’ve updated the article.

Hi Jamesw,

I think we may have to agree to disagree on this one. I do not think that this will be the very next thing. I think “polyamory” will be the very next thing followed or preceded by artificial gender bending, followed perhaps by “questions” with regard to the age of consent for homosexual marriage and then, possibly, the “furry” community…there are after all, to be “no outcasts”.

So I disagree that this posting is out of bounds or beyond the realm of possibility. I think, in fact, we are seeing the future.

ACTUALLY, this is not a mis-attribution of an evil to TEC.  Bestiality has already been associated with TEC.  Have you not read Spong? 

Spong, a CERTIFIED (TM) Episcopal Saint and Hero (like George Tiller) is in favor of bestiality.

Fidophilia?
Intercessor

Well now hold on there folks.  Let’s turn the clock back 20 years. 

Is there any possible way that your parents would have possibly believed that TEC would be:
1.  Deposing orthodox bishops
2.  Suing churches over property
3.  Advancing the homosexual agenda over the objections of Cantebury and the Primates
4.  Have a part-Buddist priest being voted on to be an Episcopal bishop
5.  Have an openly homosexual bishop travel the country as the “Simple Country Bishop”

Really?  Is there one person out there that thinks this is where we would be today?

I think that is the point of this post…to point out that we think that the TEC could’t possibly stoop to this level.  WELL, IT IS POSSIBLE.  Look at where we were then and where we are now. 

With the current rate of change TEC may “go to the dogs” in another 10 years (smile).  TEC is “of the world”, so it is just a reflection of the decline of society.

Remember, Spong is an official ‘bishop’ (faux) of TEC.

With all due respect to Keith—and to the (rather tangential) point that he makes about TEC’s position regarding sexuality—I have to agree with all of those who have said they think that posting this story was unnecessary.

I assume that the dead are excluded because, as best I understand Scripture, they have NO sexual orientation

Never thought anything could make heaven seem less appealing. : )

#11, I am afraid that TEc has cornered the market on being the ,i>Laughing Stock of the Church.”</i>
If you are okay with associating yourself with bishops and priests that ride in gay pride parades that mock Christianity and family life and promote lewd sexual acts and domination, as sadist behavior then why on earth would bestiality be so gross to you and those who find it so?

[20] Floridian:

You write:

Spong, a CERTIFIED (TM) Episcopal Saint and Hero (like George Tiller) is in favor of bestiality.

I can find no web reference to this assertion. Can you supply?

Professor Piedmont wonders if these “Furries” get blessed at a TEC parish on Saint Francis Day.

Yes, but were the dogs in question male or female?

I mean, heterosexual bestiality is one thing. But homosexual bestiality, that’s just wrong.

Don’t you appreciate the fine art of hyperbole and charicature, leonL? 

Spong is Ragsdale’s ordaining ‘bishop’ and KJS’s hero; she had him speak in ‘her’ diocese and hasn’t deposed him.  Ragsdale called Tiller a saint.  Be assured, Spong is likewise exalted.

#14 writes, “that you would think that the photo was real shows how out of touch you are with the Episcopal Church.”

Unfortunately I’m enough in touch with TEC that I wouldn’t let certain 815 shepherds (including the PB) and certain bishops anywhere near my sheep. I’m not at all CERTAIN that this “blessing” did not happen.

From a rationalist, secular humanist point of view, what’s difference between homosexual practice and bestiality? What two (or more) do in the privacy of their home ought not to matter, right? If sexual orientation is inborn, then why forbid someone to express it with the animal that they love? Do the Levitical prohibitions apply to this modern era? Let’s bless it. People will flock (ummm…) to the liberal parishes.

Speaking of the New Frontier, there was a dude ranch somewhere in the Pacific Northwest where dudes could mate with stallions. (Holy Freud, Batman!) That made the news headlines. I’m not surprised. These various perversions are more common than one might guess. They’re just not talked about very much. Kinda like homosexual practice before 1950.

Folks:  Lay off of Jackie.  She is referring to those whose “species identification” is different, not to the specific actions of Mr. Whitson. 

Prosecutor Michael Golden told KITI Whitson is a member of a group known as the Furries who identify with an animal and dress the part in makeup, ears and tail.

Do they also chase cars or bite mailmen?  Is this different than those delusional men who believe they’re really women?  Although a few may appear to be of questionable gender, the overwhelming majority don’t look like women but rather resemble men wearing dresses which is the pitiful truth.

So, people actually believe “serious” Episcopalians wouldn’t countenance bestiality.  This is just over-the-top stupidity of the “laughing stock of Christendom.”  Here’s a quote from William Countryman’s “Dirt, Greed, and Sex.”  “To be specific, the gospel allows no rule against the following, in and of themselves: masturbation, nonvaginal heterosexual intercourse, bestiality, polygamy, homosexual acts, or erotic art and literature.  The Christian is free to be repelled by any or all of these and may continue to practice her or his own purity code in relation to them.  What we are not free to do is impose our codes on others.  Like all sexual acts, these may be genuinely wrong where they also involve an offense against the property or another, denial of the equality of women and men, or an idolatrous substitution of sex for the reign of God as the goal of human existence.”

If you don’t know who Bill Counrtyman is, he is a partnered homosexual, an Episcopal Priest, who teaches at our Episcopal Seminary in Berkeley—CDSP, where our Schori graduated from in 1994.  His book is considered “good scholarship”, and a must read.  This “money quote” is not from an odd note, or a funny quip at a conference; its the conclusion of the thesis he sets out to prove in a 280 page book.

that you would think that the photo was real shows how out of touch you are with the Episcopal Church.

Let’s see… A multitude of Bishops who deny the physical resurrection of Christ and the uniqueness of Christ as the way to salvation, a female priest who is also a Muslim, a male priest who has also undergone lay ordination as a Buddhist monk and is a candidate for Bishop, a gay Bishop who has divorced his wife and is now “married” to his male lover, lesbian priestesses, a divinity school dean who teaches that abortion is a sacrament and sanctifies a man who has the blood of 60,000 innocent children on his hands, Bishops who ride in gay pride parades where participants have sex in the street, priests who are also Wiccans, same sex marriages, a priest(ess) who blesses multipartner relationships, Bishops on their third wife, and a church that thinks nothing of renting out the finest cathedral sanctuary and narthex n NYC to a gay pop star for his birthday party.

No, I would say that Ralph is pretty well in with the Episcopal church right now.

I know of a seminarian (now ordained in TEC) who advocated that the church’s historic and consistent treatment of beastiality should be revisited and changed because it was outdated, outmoded and discriminatory.  So - while the article is disgusting and not currently specific to TEC, stay tuned!

I agree that this really is not up to SFIF’s standards….Makes it seem more like VOL….but that’s just my opinion.

I also agree with Matt+ that the next thing to come is polyamory….because it’s already being talked about (at a conference cosponsored by an Episcopal Seminary).

Tongue in cheek or not….this kind of post is wonderful ammunition for our “worthy opponents.”

[24] bluenarrative,

Before I write anything else, allow me to express how good it is to see you posting here again.

Nevertheless, I don’t think my point was all that “tangential.” I base this on the concept that words express ideas and ideas have consequences. The language a rational and literate person uses reflects, in some significant way, the thought processes of the author. The absence of any qualifiers has implications, and unqualified accession to that language will have consequences, even if the authors of the present documents are not consciously aware of all of them. In that latter instance, the language will communicate to those who read it the message which it encapsulates, whether or not that meaning was intended.

Therefore, unless I have somehow mistaken the intent of your comment, I believe that my point was relevant.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

Like all sexual acts, these may be genuinely wrong where they also involve an offense against the property of another…

Theron: According to your quotation of Bill Countryman, he wouldn’t have a problem with Mr. Whitson’s behavior because he was the owner of the dogs.  That’s bizarre isn’t it?

What will actually happen is that this post and thread’s existence will be seen by a good many progressives who will see to it you get lots of publicity, as proof of the mindless vicious attitude of those on the conservative side.  This sort of cheap shot (and it is) will definitely get mileage.

FWIW
jimB

In Africa, a man who was caught red handedly ****** a goat was forced to marry the goat.

Is there a law against bigamy between man and dogs?

In this day of troubled times, when you can’t tell the AC’s from the DC,s, isn’t it time to put on a little stopping power?

Dirt, Greed and Sex, first published in 1988, represents, in my view, an attempt to theologise 1960s middle class sexual rebellion. On reflection, the amazing thing is that it took 20 years for an Episcopal priest to write it.

(Markus Bockmuehl has, in my view, written a politely devastating critique of Countryman’s whole thesis).

jimB

Sure… we’ll never see the day when anyone representing TEC could ever say something like:

“Bestiality, where it is the casual recourse of the young or of people isolated over long periods of time from other humans, should occasion little concern.”

Ohhh, jimb. I’m sure the people who post on this blog are weally, weally skeered what the “progressives” think of them. Because of course, “progressives” are never vicious in their blogging or posts. LOLOLOL. They are always full of the milk of human kindness and the fruit of the spirit.

Piedmont:
You got it, exactly.  But we’re just mean-spirited, bigots.  How dare someone like Jackie connect the dots.  That’s just over the top.  Oh, Bill did it in 1988 as a seminary professor, as a priest…  and he thought it was a good thing!

FenelonSpoke,

So the set of all people you want on your side is those now on it?  Looking stupid is not a recruiting tool.

FWIW
jimB

So the set of all people you want on your side is those now on it?  Looking stupid is not a recruiting tool.

FWIW
jimB

quoth jimB, a fan of “The Mad Priest” aka Rev. Jonathan Hagger. LOL.

There is a connection between homosex and bestiality - they are both sin and expressly forbidden by God and are defiling, damaging to the icon of God within us.  Sin always harms.  The wages of sin is death.

[30] Floridian

Your write:

Don’t you appreciate the fine art of hyperbole and charicature, leonL? 

I would characterize that as the stretch of this yet-new century.

#31- Ralph

People will flock (ummm…) to the liberal parishes.

and the congregation said…Baaaaa!
Intercessor

Some of the responses remind me of the current political Loon Left, who are going apoplectic about Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh.  Instead of responding to the substance of their attacks, they simply run to ad hominem attacks.

Folks, the substance of this article points directly to the moral relativism imbedded in TEC.  If its okay to ignore homosexual prohibition, what is wrong with ignoring bestiality in Scripture and Christian teaching also?

Deal with the substance of the argument - it makes for much more intellectually stimulating discussion!

-Jim+

Folks, jimB is right.  I agree with everyone here that TEC is loopy and that TEC’s poor excuse for theology just might countenance sex with animals if taken to its logical extremes.  But does anyone here REALLY think that this is the next step in TEC progression into insanity?

What is the difference between this sort of posting, and a liberal posting comparing Peter Akinola to Fred Phelps?  Is that the road we want to walk down?

This posting does not contribute positively to the discussion.  It is beneath us.  It is the equivalent to giving a bad driver the middle finger and cursing them.  It might be deserved, but it is cheap and tawdry and is of no credit to us.

And besides, those struggling with homosexual impulses but who are hoping that there is a better way might see this and then think that conservatives really are stupid idiots who can’t see the difference between a committed same-sex relationship (which I DO think is sinful) and sex with animals.

Again - what is the gain in posting this?  How does it contribute to orthodox Anglicanism in the world?

#50, I do feel a little guilty about that sentence. I’ll consider myself defiled until sunset, and will not drink wine or beer until cleansed.

#37, I’m irrational and illiterate; also a red-necked homophobe, paedophobe, fidophobe, and necrophobe. And I’m also afraid of Jack Spong and Bill Countryman, who have made me rethink my previous negative feelings about burning at the stake. Book burnings is what I mean, of course.

I’m not going to post in the Tiller thread again, but this thread, and the Tiller thread both remind me of Joseph Addison’s hymn (which will probably not be sung at the Tiller services):

When rising from the bed of death,
O’erwhelmed with guilt and fear,
I see my Maker face to face,
O how shall I appear?

If yet, while pardon may be found,
And mercy may be sought,
My heart with inward horror shrinks,
And trembles at the thought;

When Thou, O Lord, shalt stand disclosed
In majesty severe,
And sit in judgment on my soul,
O how shall I appear?

But Thou hast told the troubled mind
Who does her sins lament,
The timely tribute of her tears
Shall endless woe prevent.

Then see the sorrow of my heart,
Ere yet it be too late;
And hear my Saviour’s dying groans,
To give those sorrows weight.

For never shall my soul despair
Her pardon to procure,
Who knows Thine only Son has died
To make her pardon sure.

Some folks, who would carve out a New Frontier for TEC, still have a chance to repent.

In parting, another “hymn,” perhaps sung in some of the evo Anglican parishes:

Last night I dreamed I died and stood outside those pearly gates,
When suddenly I realized there must be some mistake.
If they know half the things I’ve done they’ll never let me in,
Then somewhere from the Other Side, I heard these words again:

And He said, Let me tell you a secret, about a Father’s love,
A secret that my Daddy said was just between us.
He said, Daddies don’t just love their children every now and then,
Its a love without end, Amen, its a love without end, Amen.

Signing off, Rafe

Why the outrage?  Is it that you do not believe TEC could ever, ever consider sanctioning such a thing?  Is it the dreaded “ick factor?”  Say it ain’t so, Joe!

Come with me as we wander down memory lane… to the days when The Episcopal Church was a growing Christian organization.  When members of all stripes were convinced they could trust that The Episcopal Church would never stray from 2,000 years of Christian tradition….

Dateline:  1950 Newspaper headline:  Two male priests accused of having sex with each other admitted in Lewis County Superior Court they would be found guilty of sodomy.  A spokesman for The Episcopal Church said they were outraged that the courts do not recognize sexual orientation as a gift from God. 
or this 1960 TV news teaser:
Episcopal priests considers abortion a blessing.  The Rev. Ragsdale is quoted as saying, And when a woman becomes pregnant within a loving, supportive, respectful relationship; has every option open to her; decides she does not wish to bear a child; and has access to a safe, affordable abortion – there is not a tragedy in sight—only blessing. The ability to enjoy God’s good gift of sexuality without compromising one’s education, life’s work, or ability to put to use God’s gifts and call is simply blessing.  The Episcopal Church has elevated the Rev. Ragsdale to dean of the Episcopal Divinity School.
How about in 1970 opening the wedding announcements and reading this:  Felipe Sanchez-Paris, Ph.D., and the Right Reverend Otis Charles were married September 29, the Feast of Saint Michael the Archangel and also the birthday for Sanchez-Paris.

Maybe, just maybe, if someone had pointed out what was happening while the water was warming up, we might not be where we are today.

As for upsetting the progressives, you can bet on it.  Will they be outraged at the thought?  Heavens no!  What will upset them is that a highly trafficked blog has dared to point out just how slippery they have made the slope.

Exactly how can TEC justify condemning one sexual orientation and not another?  On what theological ground will they stand?  How does one bless SSM but condemn polygamy as but one example?  I am afraid that they are so far off the reservation, they have stepped off the cliff.

Hang on JimB, I haven’t seen you respond to Theron Walker’s post. Dirt, Greed and Sex has been hugely influential as it is the most widely read presentation of the theological case for “the new thing”. That it concludes that bestiality and polygamy are ethically acceptable for faithful Christians using the same Scriptural reasoning that makes same gender sex ethically acceptable, is a fact.

Jackie:  I would suggest to you that the problem is in the way it is presented.

JamesW, in a sense I agree with you, despite the fact that some on the progressive side of the debate clearly do see same sex marriage as a staging post in a much wider reformation of sexual morality, a broader audience may well simply not believe it. So, I agree drawing attention to what some do see as the reasonable consequences of this “reform”, is extraordinarily hard. In general I’ve found it more fruitful to present a positive case for the church’s historic view. (FWIW when I have gotten to a place in which I could raise such possibilities in loving discussion, many progressive folks have been willing to say that, though they don’t necessarily like such outcomes, they’re not sure they have the right to prohibit them).

Perhaps one shouldn’t delve into wisecracks on the list.  OK…but it is totally relevant and to the point to post things like Counrtyman’s quote, or footage from the Gay Parade, or Carter Haywood’s strange stuff on why her therapist should get involved with her, etc…  One need not say outrageous things—its part of the culture of excess that is the sexual revolution.  Just quote and show examples of the excess, and one doesn’t even need to leave the Episcopal Church to find examples, as Jackie shows above. 
Folks, nice folks all around and in my parish, don’t like the icky stuff brought up.  Let’s keep it nice…but this movement is not nice.  Its about excess, breaking boundaries and taboos, part and parcel.  What will turn us on when all the taboos are broken, all of them gone?  We poor, ignorant, fundies, just don’t get that the whole point of the gospel was to end all the artificial taboos and purity codes, so every individual could be true to themselves as they understand themselves, as long as they don’t hurt anyone.  Wow.  Amazing the church missed that for all these years.  In this worldview, breaking taboos is gospel, is “prophetic.”  And a lot of people with all kinds of drives and hungers and lusts buy into this stuff, swallow the jagged little pill, and loose so very, very much.  The dignity of every human being…

Wow, Theron Walker #58:

The dignity of every human being…

Right on target.  The more that is intoned, the more depraved and degraded are the people under TEC’s influence.

I find this post disgusting. The is nothing of Christ in this post or those who agree with it.  I am an Episcopalian with great sympathy for those who believe TEC has gone astray.  I had truly hoped that if my Diocese should choose to leave TEC, I could find a home in the new ACNA.  But as I have followed Standfast, Titus One Nine and other blogs supportive of ACNA, I have come to realize this will never work for me.  God is not here.  I have found nothing but anger, bitterness, and vile attacks on a Church which, whether you like it or not, contains hundreds of thousands of faithful, loving Christians who work hard to do the will of god every day.  People who would never stoop to the level of this post.

I love each of you as my brothers, and pray we are all on the path god has laid out for us.

Well, QV, Have you read the remarks that for years Countryman and Spong and so forth have been promoting bestiality?  How come all the “hundreds of thousands of faithful, loving Christians who work hard to do the will of god every day” have allowed these people to continue spewing their toxic effluent all over the globe?

But does anyone here REALLY think that this is the next step in TEC progression into insanity?

Not me.  I believe the next step will be normalization of peadophilia.  Bestiality would probably come after that in short order.  Assuming the Lord tarries.

I didn’t actually look at the initial article. However, I don’t think bestilaity is the next step. I think the endorsing of polymory will be next, and some claptrap will be given about as long as people love each other what’s the problem? In fact, someone on one website I read suggested that the theological justification will be the heretical use of the Trinity, “After all, those three persons were in a relationship of love. Only bigots would suggest that marriage be limited to just two people.”

QV - of course you are right. It is shameful. I think that’s the point.

I think of the lack of knowledge of many faithful, loving, good Episcopalians about what patterns of Scriptural reasoning are being taught in their seminaries, being discussed very quietly etc. It really is shocking. I agree with you. One only has to listen to a first timer return from General Convention and see how they are utterly, utterly amazed and shocked.

Would I have posted this. No, I would not. For I recognize that in many folks the only reaction to it will be revulsion. Is it something I have reflected on? It is. I have even spoken about this broad issue (namely, where are the appropriate boundaries for faithful chrisians) to friends who are progressives and, as I said, whilst not one of them found this any less distasteful than I did, unlike me, some of them wondered whether we should prohibit it: what consenting adults do, in their own privacy, that causes no harm is their own business. Or at least that is the trajectory we seem to be on…

BTW I don’t think either T19 or SF are ACNA blogs - though ACNA folks often contribute. I, for one, love the Episcopal Church with her myriad failings and am committed to her future. Lord have mercy on us.

It’s not obvious to me what will be the next civil rights issue. Perhaps multiple partner households.

Hmm, I’m still trying to figure out what lovely Jackie meant by this”

CAUTION: The subject matter in the following post will be objectionable to some people.

Some people?  So, who is that you feel would not find the vile post objectionable?

Just curious…

RoF

Hey, did some people forget that V. Gene screened a film about bestiality a couple of years ago at Sundance?  If I remember correctly, he termed the film “interesting and innovative”...

I missed that one; I was too distracted with skipping the parts of the Creed that he doesn’t care for.

ROF, she said the subject matter might be thought objectionable. In other words, as we have seen, many folks object to this subject matter ever being discussed. FWIW, as I have said, I understand and basically agree with that perception. Nevertheless, it is being quietly discussed in some other contexts (one of which - the most influential book of the last 20 years arguing against the church’s historic teaching on human sexuality - been quoted in this thread).

66, RoF, I’m going to go out on a limb and say the Furries.

Jersey Girl, the Sundance film was specifically about homosexuality and the church (guess which way it leaned).  Haven’t heard if there is a sequel yet.

I don’t have much interaction with furries, but just to make one thing clear:  “Furry” is not a synonym for zooaphilia, and furry fandom need not necessarly involve a sexual element. 

If you want to talk about people that have sex with animals or want to have sex with animals, call them zoophiles or bestialists.

#72 Did you read Theron Walker’s post at #33? (Don’t you think everything is nutty at SF anyway?)

Ok, i read the first few posts and then the last few.  won’t claim to read those inbetween.  But we need to move on folks…

If it were felt necessary for some bizarre reason (I for one see no good reason to even post it) to draw attention to this case, why give it such an unnecessarily provocative and inflammatory heading? The post but especially it’s heading is both distasteful and unworthy of Stand Firm.
I am disappointed that this site has sunk to this.

Peter Dewberry

#76 OK - we can say “Does”. “Doesn’t”. “Does”. “Doesn’t” and leave it at that. Or we can actually engage with each others ideas. The thread contains a quotation supporting the matter under discussion from an elder statesman of the Episcopal Church and former Episcopal seminary professor in what has been the most influential book on human sexuality from the progressive point of view. I see that as relevant to the Episcopal Church. If you want, explain to me why you don’t.

OK - you chose option one. You don’t have to discuss with anyone you chose not to. I did try however.

Concur with many of readers. This is pure garbage and totally distracts from scripture values/standards that we as Orthodox support. This post undermines the credibility of this blog and only promotes TEC’s own self destruction path. I REMIND CONTRIBUTORS, a lesson from Matthew 5:43-45 (you know, the advice you give us folks that post comments).  Of course we as readers also have option of not reading SF and if posts like this continues, that will be a very likely outcome. Suggest removing/closing this post.
Peace

OK - ISTM that I would not have posted this - and have avoided mentioned the initiating tale but rather the issues raised in Theron Walker’s post. Yet I see that scandal is being caused by the thread. Thus I will post no further.

Wow, what a depressing thread to read.

I can see the progressive activists being all upset—they don’t want pointed out the logical progression of their rationale to support one particular [and currently favored] sexual orientation. 

And obviously, we here at StandFirm have all worked really really hard to make progressive activist blogs happy with us!  ; > )

I’m just fine being a [faux] “laughing stock” [or gnashing stock] for the [TEC progressive activist] community.  I consider it to be a sign of doing our job.

Doesn’t trouble me a bit that progressives will give us lots of publicity—and thanks for the traffic!  “Looking stupid” to a progressive activist is good news . . . why would I want to look anything at all positive to one of them?

Questio Verum:
RE: “a Church which, whether you like it or not, contains hundreds of thousands of faithful, loving Christians who work hard to do the will of god every day.”

I agree—after all Jackie, I, and Greg are also members of TEC. 

AnglicanRon:
RE: “Of course we as readers also have option of not reading SF and if posts like this continues, that will be a very likely outcome.”

I agree—people who don’t like such “outrageous” posts pointing out the logical progression of TECusa progressive “theology” certainly don’t like SF—and haven’t for the past four years, either.  Be assured that we’ll continue right along posting just as we have for the past four years.  And . . . certainly we hope that traffic will continue right along as it has for the past four years—growing like a weed.

No, the progressive activists being outraged [or claiming whatever feelings they have] is a good sign.

But the depressing thing about this thread is reading the incredible continuing naivete of conservative Episcopalians.  Good heavens!  Thank God nobody ever pointed out the logical progression of TECusan progressive theology back say 20 years ago!  They would have been tarred and feathered as completely “outrageous” and “distracting” and “undermining the credibility” and “inflammatory” and “distasteful” and “unworthy” and “sinking so low” to evah evah evah suggest that TEC might . . . well . . .have Druid priests, and Islamopalian priests, and Buddhist bishop elects and Bishop Andrus riding in a pride parade featuring the vilest of sexual perversions and another bishop covering up his brother’s sexual affair with a 14-year-old and . . . on and on and on and on.

How disgraceful!  How outrageous!  How low can SF go to suggest that this could *ever* happen to TECusa!!!

JamesW:
RE: “But does anyone here REALLY think that this is the next step in TEC progression into insanity?”

Of course not.

We need to trail along behind the hip trends in society.  So what we need to pursue after the whole gay-is-great-campaign-and-you-better-clap-at-our-parade is:

—blessings and affirmations of gender selection—nobody need be trapped in a body or gender not of their own choosing
—expansion of the definition of marriage beyond the limiting and exclusive notion of “just one partner”
—lowering the age of consent in order to honor the sexual choices of all
—allowing love beyond species-centric prejudice

That’s the logical progression.

But to think that—five horrible gross corrupt decadent years later from 2003—we *still* have TECusa conservative allies decrying any mention of “new frontiers” for TEC is the most depressing thing about this thread.

It really is true.  Many conservatives just aren’t going to learn.  They’re going to spend their whole dadblame lives being 1) shocked and appalled at the latest perversion being blessed and affirmed, 2) spending lots of time complaining and saying “ain’t it awful”, 3) denouncing as “outrageous” and “inflammatory” and “undermining credibility” for anyone who points out what’s next and what’s next and what’s next. 

Then rinse and repeat.

Let’s just quote that fine partnered homosexual, Episcopal priest, and Episcopal seminary teacher that Theron Walker [also a TEC priest by the way] quoted above—from the 1980s.

Here’s a quote from William Countryman’s “Dirt, Greed, and Sex.” “To be specific, the gospel allows no rule against the following, in and of themselves: masturbation, nonvaginal heterosexual intercourse, bestiality, polygamy, homosexual acts, or erotic art and literature.  The Christian is free to be repelled by any or all of these and may continue to practice her or his own purity code in relation to them.  What we are not free to do is impose our codes on others.  Like all sexual acts, these may be genuinely wrong where they also involve an offense against the property or another, denial of the equality of women and men, or an idolatrous substitution of sex for the reign of God as the goal of human existence.”

How outrageous of Theron to quote that!  How inflammatory!  How divisive!  How undermining of his credibility!  How beneath him!  How distracting!  How appalling!

How . . . completely apropos. 

And entirely supportive of Jackie’s thesis.

Oops.

I just don’t see how we can exclude the marriage of more than two people if bi-sexuals are to have true equality.  How can they self-actualize and have the fullness of their happiness unless they can be in a loving and committed relationship with both sexes?

I just don’t see how we can exclude the marriage of more than two people ... in a loving and committed relationship with both sexes?

Heh. I made the same statement over a year ago at E. Kaeton’s blog.  She banned me. Polyamory is truly the next “inch to be gained” in TEC.

Driver,

FYI, I am free as are you to respond where I will.

FWIW
jimB

Driver,

FYI, I am free as are you to respond where I will.

No doubt… but your lack of a response says at least as much about your position as the thread says about anyone else’s. You claim to see a “mindless vicious attitude” - implying that it’s simply beyond the pale to imply that TEC may move even farther down the road of blessing sinful behavior… yet it has been demonstrated that it is by no means impossible. Let us please not pretend that you could respond if you really wanted to. You can’t.

What you miss is that they no longer have a Christian worldview. That doesn’t mean that they cannot be saved… or don’t believe in Christ. It means that they view the Bible through the lens of their culture rather than the other way around. The Bible and the historical faith have become jewelry to hang about themselves as adornment… they are not the core from which they derive their being. They are shackled to a dying world. While their next “new thing” may not may not be predictable, the course they are steering is clearly away from the things of God.

jamesw What is the difference between this sort of posting, and a liberal posting comparing Peter Akinola to Fred Phelps?
The difference is that that would be slander. Phelps deliberately preaches because he wishes to be the means of reprobating people, he’s not trying to save them. You can’t compare that situation to the condemnation of two types of evil, the condemnation of which occurs with in one verse of the other. The whining of the activists here (Scott and Charles) is similar to the sudden prudishness and delicacy of pro-aborts who object to pictures of abortions, when those pictures are used to force them to confront the actual issue. The left tries to numb us… don’t fall for it. Don’t equate Akinola to people desperately trying to convince themselves and others that their behavior isn’t wrong.

by two types of evil I meant: Lev 18:22-23

It was not wise of Jackie to post this, in my humble opinion.  I feel somewhat guilty of even participating in this thread by posting this.  Move on, folks, surely there must be something more relevant and Christ-affirming to talk about today.  Hey, Trinity Sunday is this Sunday.  Any lovers of Sufjan’s version of Holy Holy Holy out there?

RE: “Move on, folks, surely there must be something more relevant and Christ-affirming to talk about today.”

Right—it’s never relevant and Christ-affirming to point out moral and theological failure in a shrinking but historic denomination is it?  Or the fact that such moral and theological failure inevitably leads to further and further corruption and decadence as the shrinking denomination’s leaders desperately tail along behind the increasingly corrupt zeitgeist?

...increasingly corrupt zeitgeist?

Ooooh…. a twelve point vocabulary word. : )

Well said Sarah.

If this man were Episcopalian, posting this would make more sense to me. A debate about Countryman would make sense to me. But this sensational story of a mentally ill man who is being dealt with by the criminal justice system ... I don’t get posting it here. No need to reiterate the arguments above.

I am amazed at the response to Jackie’s post.  I am amazed at offense taken by “conservatives” that Jackie has raised this question.  If one goes into the world that Countryman says we Christians are “free” to go into, let’s just say, porn, 1) One is now supporting a whole industry that systemically defiles the image of God/human dignity in the people making it. 2) One is now warping their mind/body to expect and long for actions that denigrate the image of God/Human dignity.  3) One is now on a path that, over and over and over again moves from soft to hard core.  Its a hedonistic “ethic” of excess. 

I fail to see how someone cannot see anything of Anglicanism and Christ here.  1) Senior episcopal clergy teach, preach, and embody this stuff.  2) This is all about the image of God, and human dignity whose source is being wonderfully created in the image of God, yet more wonderfully redeemed in Jesus Christ. 

Personally, I am not “disgusted” or “revolted” by the man who has fallen into this particular sin.  It’s sin—that he can be delivered from—but he cannot be delivered from it if it gets rationalized away into another form of the “freedom we have in Christ” as Countryman, AN EPISCOPAL PRIEST LIKE ME, would argue.  While these kinds of polemics talk about the kingdom of God, they invariably connect the kingdom of God to a kind of individual liberation which is largely experienced by excess, breaking boundaries, taboos, etc… 
I am a big fan of ministries like xxxchurch, living waters, and where grace abounds.  With those ministries, I really have no feelings or inclinations to judge others.  But, I do discern, and I do care, and I do want people, myself included, to be free, and enjoy the great dignity of my whole existence.  I don’t know how to do that without knowing grace in Christ, knowing what sin is, how it steals, kills, and destroys, repenting, and helping others along the way.  As an Anglican, I also understand salvation not just as an individual thing—deliver individuals from sin but let society go to hell.  Anglicans have historically cared about public good—its why our Prayer Books have marriage liturgies (not a private arrangement); its why praying for those in authority has always been central; its why we have common prayer—something that expresses our place as living stones in a temple.  We are social beings, made for communion.  And btw, the church cannot understand what that communion is without the sacrament of marriage.

I guess what it boils down to for me is this simple question about the (foreseeable) future: 

How many people here, given the current slant and direction of TEC on inclusiveness and sexual openess (nicest way I could think of to put it), think that within the next five years TEC will embrace, endorse, or otherwise at least SANCTION bestiality?

It’s a fair question.  As an Intelligence Analyst, I constantly deal with methods and intentions and have to offer my insights about what the future may hold.

In this case, if you were paying me for my opinion, I would conclude that their is ample evidence given the theological trends within TEC (since Spong first stood up in an official capacity and said “Jesus = God?  NO Way!” and nobody disciplined him, and continuing from there) for a reasonably analytical person to conclude that YES, in the near future, other (typically considered) sexual taboos will be redefined as acceptable in order to maximize the sensitivity and inclusiveness of TEC.

It’s a reasonable question, and my current viewpoint is that YES, bestiality will be sanctioned.

So what say you SF-ers?  Yeah or Nay?  5 Year Time Frame.

KTF!...mrb

But this sensational story of a mentally ill man who is being dealt with by the criminal justice system.

Do you regard the perception of this as ‘sensationalistic’ and belief that he is ‘mentally ill’ as just an opinion, or fact? If the DSM is revised to call the behavior normal, if enough sitcoms/novels are written that spin this in a positive light, would you change your opinion? Say it ain’t so.

Mike - It all depends on how you define your terms. As has already been documented here, it was already “nothing to be concerned about” years ago within parts of TEC.

More importantly, when conservatives point out that “what comes next” is polygamy or beastiality or sex with children it isn’t just hyperbole. The arguemnt isn’t just to cause concern that the left won’t stop here. It’s because the arguement is already made. When you state a principle and use it to extrapolate a position, you are inherently arguing other positions that emanate from the same principles. If “participants are consenting” and “nobody gets hurt” makes an act ok… then you may try to limit the application of your argument to gay sex… but the door is open to anything.

So you could say that it has already happened. I would say that I wouldn’t expect a formal acceptance or a “beastiality bishop” any time in five years or fifty… but the door was opened back when they replaced God’s law with what felt good. There is no “this far and no farther” line when Christ has been invited to leave the building.

They have lost their anchor. Where they drift is anyone’s guess.

Ick… “argument”. Sorry.

No SpongJohn, I wouldn’t change my opinion. I think the issue itself is open for discussion and Countryman’s quote would have been a great place to start. This man, not so much.

Oh, Sarah, Get over your bad self for a moment. 

RE: “Right—it’s never relevant and Christ-affirming to point out moral and theological failure in a shrinking but historic denomination is it?”

Uh, perhaps I missed that part of the story because I was too busy feeling overcome by the depravity of this man’s actions.  So you’re saying this guy voted yes for Forrester?  He spoke out against B033 at the last convention?  He sued his local church over property theft for having the balls to leave TEC?

Puh-lease.  You were one of the first of us to think hard about strategery around here.  Posting this was a collosaltastic mistake. 

See, I know me some good vocab words too!

My question is, do you know “Ring of Fire”. Your posting style sounds similar.

RE: “Uh, perhaps I missed that part of the story . . . “

Yes—it looks as if you did.

The story can be found in Jackie’s headline which postulates a potential new frontier for TEC and makes an excellent assertion that this is yet another stop on the slide downhill for TEC leaders.  That assertion is beautifully demonstrated by the excellent quote from Countryman—priest and seminary professor—that says precisely what Jackie postulates—and back in the 80s.

RE: “You were one of the first of us to think hard about strategery around here.  Posting this was a collosaltastic mistake.”

So far, nobody has yet demonstrated any strategic or tactical mistake in pointing out yet another future stop on the TECusa road.  The only thing I’ve heard has been occasional bleats that revisionists may possibly not like us, something that I suspect we’ve well demonstrated over the past four years that we don’t work that hard to achieve.  Anything else, WG?

Fenelon Spoke—WG is a great guy, even though he occasionally thinks we should be sweeter and silenter over here at SF.

Sarah:  why would any Christian, Episcopalian or otherwise, think it acceptable that a lower animal could be used for human sexual gratification?  There can be no consent, and such activity can in no way be holy.  It is simply not possible that the Episcopal Church of the United States or any other Anglican (or, for that matter, Christian) church is going to endorse bestiality as a practice acceptable to Christians.

  This was, by any standard, an extraordinarily vile and despicable post.  There is great evil and perversity in the world.  Very little of it (proportionally) originates among the members or clergy of the Episcopal Church.  By this measure, every example of deviant human behaviour can be identified as a likely extrapolation from this or that element of Anglican discord.  This kind of thing is hysterical (in the clinical psychology sense, not the comedic sense) and bespeaks a mindset that has overtaken important theological discussions about what we, as Christians, should conclude about our views of marriage.

For some reason, I find myself trying to get to the surface of this sewer and hearing the hymn “All things bright and beautiful, all creatures great and small.”  I hope that is powerful enough to overcome the stench of this post.  Those of you who are attempting to rationalize, justify, or minimize the affront of linking this kind of perverse abuse of God’s creatures to Episcopalian doctrine, had better take a long time out.  You’ve completely gone ‘round the bend and your hearts are filled with venom.  The important discussion of what we believe, as informed by the Gospels, about marriage and love between men and women has been reduced to two-digit IQ demonization, a demonization driven by very low human instincts and propensities.

[103] NoVA Scout

Why would any Christian, Episcopalian or otherwise, think it acceptable that a lower animal could be used for human sexual gratification?

Bestiality is perverse.  Perversity requires the existence of a natural boundary.  There cannot be perversity unless there is some natural use to be violated.  And we are in the process of demolishing the whole concept of natural use.  That is indeed the whole problem with legitimizing homosexuality.  It reduces the entire problem of sexual morality to consent.  We are asymptotically approaching the instantiation of no sexual limits at all, given only the existence of authentic consent.

Now you will surely point to this statement:

  There can be no consent, and such activity can in no way be holy.

But why does consent really matter?  Do we ask the consent of a horse before we ride it, or the consent of a cat before we spay it, or the the consent of a cow before we eat it, or the consent of a deer before we shoot it?  We do not treat animals as humans.  We never ask consent of them, for they have no means to give it.  And yet we act for them and on them all them time.  Why should we suddenly demand consent in order to use an animal for sex?  Who ever said that consent from the animal was required to have sex with an animal?  Surely it is possible for the animal to not be harmed.  What other criteria need we apply to make a judgment of its moral rightness? 

Well, we could use the criteria of structural defect to compliment consent.  A relationship between man & animal is defective because there is a mismatch of kind.  But we have already dispatched the idea of structural defect.  It was dismissed when we legitimized homosexuality.  By nature, sex occurs between male and female.  A relationship between same genders was assumed structurally defective because it defied this boundary.  But now we have expanded the boundary on the basis of consent at the expense of structure.  Can we now re-assert the structural boundary to restrict sexual behavior B having already thrown down that same boundary in order to allow sexual behavior A?

Perhaps you will say “The old structural boundary was wrong because it was based on irrational prejudice, but this expanded boundary will hold.  People naturally know that sex with animals is wrong.”  Do they?  There is a reason that the Old Testament includes prohibitions on sex with animals.  It wasn’t just a theoretical law.  Perhaps you are just indulging your own personal ‘ick’ factor.  Perhaps you are a bestiaphobe, and need to enter a listening process.  Besides, not even 100 years ago, you would have said this with just as much justification:

Why would any Christian, Episcopalian or otherwise, think it acceptable that a man could be used by another man for sexual gratification?

And look at how far we have come.

A sexual relationship is not holy simply because it is consensual.  It is Holy only when it conforms to the will of God according to the intended use of sex within the Created order.  That is why bestiality is wrong.  And that is why it will inevitably be legitimized by a licentious population that has turned its liberty into a license to sin.  Men are hard of heart, and choose to do evil by nature.  There is no evil beyond their capacity to indulge.  Men are depraved in nature and there is no limit to what they might do.

carl

“Perhaps you are a bestiaphobe, and need to enter a listening process.”  Carl, #104, congratulations for the best line in this thread.  You said it all in a dozen words.  Well done!!!

Hi NoVa Scout:

RE: “why would any Christian, Episcopalian or otherwise, think it acceptable that a lower animal could be used for human sexual gratification?”

why would any Christian, Episcopalian or otherwise, think it acceptable that [the same gender] could be used for human sexual gratification?  Who can tell, NOVA Scout?  I surely can’t.

RE: “It is simply not possible that the Episcopal Church of the United States or any other Anglican (or, for that matter, Christian) church is going to endorse bestiality as a practice acceptable to Christians.”

Heh. 

RE: “This was, by any standard, an extraordinarily vile and despicable post.”

By progressives’ standards I’m sure that it was.  But then—by conservatives’ standards you guys have been promoting “extraordinarily vile and despicable” things for a long time.  We just obviously—yet again—don’t define the very most basic words in the same ways.  As I’ve been saying for a long long while now—we have two gospels in one organization in TEC, and we define basic words like “justice,” “sin,” “love,” “atonement,” “resurrection,” “incarnation,” “Jesus,” and yes, “vile and despicable” in antithetical ways.  None of that is a surprise, NOVA Scout.  We simply don’t share the same gospel.

RE: “There is great evil and perversity in the world.  Very little of it (proportionally) originates among the members or clergy of the Episcopal Church.”

You are absolutely right.  This blog, however, is about Anglicanism and the spiritual, moral collapse of TEC.  You, of course, don’t believe that TEC has indulged in a spiritual moral collapse at all.  And that’s fine.  But we do.  And we’ll keep pointing out where that spiritual moral collapse will lead.

RE: “By this measure, every example of deviant human behaviour can be identified as a likely extrapolation from this or that element of Anglican discord.”

Certainly any organization can follow the culture into a glorification of any kind of deviant human behavior.  TEC has proven that in spades.  But no—I think the one we have to note and predict for TECusa in the coming 15-20 years is that which has to do with wrong thinking about 1) the nature of humans and 2) sexuality.  The leadership of TEC is fixated on the notion that human beings are a-ok and need to be affirmed and accepted [communion of the unbaptized, for instance], and 2) sexual expression is absolutely integral to human rights.

Hence my list long above in this thread:

So what we need to pursue after the whole gay-is-great-campaign-and-you-better-clap-at-our-parade is:

—blessings and affirmations of gender selection—nobody need be trapped in a body or gender not of their own choosing
—expansion of the definition of marriage beyond the limiting and exclusive notion of “just one partner”
—lowering the age of consent in order to honor the sexual choices of all
—allowing love beyond species-centric prejudice

That’s the logical progression.

RE: “. . . and bespeaks a mindset that has overtaken important theological discussions about what we, as Christians, should conclude about our views of marriage.”

Oh no, NOVA Scout—you folks have already decided what you “should conclude about our views of marriage.”  And so have we.  Libs and conservatives in TEC no longer have “important theological discussions” about such matters.  You guys settled that in August of 03.  And besides—we had that great “listening process” back in the 80s when you guys all talked with one another and the conservatives showed up one time, recognized how controlled the “listening” was and didn’t show back up.  I have no doubt that you’ll keep on talking to yourselves too.

RE: “For some reason, I find myself trying to get to the surface of this sewer and hearing the hymn “All things bright and beautiful, all creatures great and small.” I hope that is powerful enough to overcome the stench of this post.”

Lol.  Yeh—we try to get to the surface of “this sewer” too—TECusa’s current direction.  It’s tough to do.

RE: “Those of you who are attempting to rationalize, justify, or minimize the affront of linking this kind of perverse abuse of God’s creatures to Episcopalian doctrine, had better take a long time out.”

So you wish, no doubt.  No thanks, though.  We’ll continue connecting the dots and extrapolating out to the future of TEC.

RE: “The important discussion of what we believe, as informed by the Gospels, about marriage and love between men and women . . . “

We’re not having an “important discussion,” NOVA Scout, amongst conservative and progressive activist Episcopalians.  You folks are talking to yourselves.  Keep up the good work—you can keep on wondering—five years on now—why nobody’s changing their mind.

Remember when all of this was just going to be a tempest in a teapot and blow over by the end of 03?

Good luck with that. 

And good luck with your “important conversation” among yourselves, NOVA Scout.

Do you guys remember the joke that started out about the preacher preaching, trying to get people to come down to the front, and confess and repent?  3 men came down, and made their confessions.  After each of the first 2 came down, the preacher told them, that as bad as their sins were, they had been forgiven.

The 3rd confessor came down, and confessed to behavior such as Jackie has described.  The preacher, dumbfounded, looked into the confessors eyes, and said, “Damn brother, I don’t believe I’da told that.”

That’s about how I feel about this story.

Thanks for keeping this going NoVa Scout.
Here’s your thesis quoted:

  why would any Christian, Episcopalian or otherwise, think it acceptable that a lower animal could be used for human sexual gratification?  There can be no consent, and such activity can in no way be holy.  It is simply not possible that the Episcopal Church of the United States or any other Anglican (or, for that matter, Christian) church is going to endorse bestiality as a practice acceptable to Christians.  This was, by any standard, an extraordinarily vile and despicable post.  There is great evil and perversity in the world.  Very little of it (proportionally) originates among the members or clergy of the Episcopal Church.

Here is Bill Countryman’s conclusion to his 280 page book.  Again, for the third time in this thread, Bill is an Episcopal priest, a now retired seminary professor (CDSP), and partnered with a man as if they were married.  Again, as has been pointed out, this man and this book have been highly influential.  He is not considered a nutter, but a mainstream contributor to “discernment of the Holy Spirit.”

Here’s a quote from William Countryman’s “Dirt, Greed, and Sex.” “To be specific, the gospel allows no rule against the following, in and of themselves: masturbation, nonvaginal heterosexual intercourse, bestiality, polygamy, homosexual acts, or erotic art and literature.  The Christian is free to be repelled by any or all of these and may continue to practice her or his own purity code in relation to them.  What we are not free to do is impose our codes on others.  Like all sexual acts, these may be genuinely wrong where they also involve an offense against the property or another, denial of the equality of women and men, or an idolatrous substitution of sex for the reign of God as the goal of human existence.”

What I can tell from your post is that you have an “ick” factor about this particular sexual sin because it crosses a “natural” boundary.  It’s offensive that folks here at SF would connect such a horrible thing with the bright and beautiful thing of gay unions.  And yet, Professor Countryman saw and argued thoroughly in 1988, that there are no “natural” boundaries.  If one dare embrace the thought that there just might be, well then, Carl’s post (108) is right on point.

Theron, this morning on my run I was musing about much the same thing.

The progressives—[at least the ones who don’t already have the complete obliteration of sexual boundaries in their sight, and there are certainly plenty of those]—see what ever they deem to be sexual sin as “icky” and terrible and unforgiveable.  Not something to be pitied and a disorder, as well as sinful.

But the truth is that all sexual sin is “disordered relationship” and sinful as well.

The person who has decided that he will have a sexual relationship with a dog, or a shoe [shoe fetishes] or some other fetish, as well as with the same gender, or with an underage minor, or with multiple opposite-gender partners outside of the bonds of marriage are in bondage.  It is “disordered.”  Scripture is very clear that sexual relations—like fire belongs in the fireplace—belongs within the context of a Christian marriage between a man and a woman.

Anything else is, to one degree or another, disordered.

But is such disordered sin “unforgiveable” or “icky” or “not to be mentioned”?  Of course not.  It is what it is.  Sinful and disordered.  And people can be set free from such bondage and disordered affections.

What I perceive in a few of these comments is a deeply puritanical notion that people of some orientations are not to be mentioned, should be condemned, and not to be talked about “in the company of such fine decent people as we perfectly normal people.”

The truth is that—without the gospel—there are only two responses that one can have to sinful behavior and disordered orientations.

The Gospel teaches us that we are to love our neighbor—sinful as he or she is just as we are sinful—while being clear in our beliefs about such sin.  “I love my [insert sin here—gay, open marriage, porn-loving, attracted to animals, sex addict, adulterer, whatever] neighbor, though what he is doing is wrong and intrinsically disordered.  Nevertheless we are all disordered through the Fall and sinful—thank God for Jesus Christ who heals us and redeems us.”

But without the gospel, people can only have two reactions.

Either: 1) I love my [insert sin here—gay, open marriage, porn-loving, attracted to animals, sex addict, adulterer, whatever] neighbor, and what he is doing is therefore fine.

Or: 2) I hate my [insert sin here—gay, open marriage, porn-loving, attracted to animals, sex addict, adulterer, whatever] neighbor, because what he is doing is disgusting and loathsome and he is less than human.

What I perceive in a few of these comments is a deeply puritanical notion that people of some orientations are not to be mentioned, should be condemned, and not to be talked about “in the company of such fine decent people as we perfectly normal people.”

I’m confused…who are the fine, decent, perfectly normal people again?

RoF

#110, stopped reading the post at that point, did you?

The quick answer is that they are not in church. Fine, decent, perfectly normal people have no need of church. There also aren’t any of them currently here in the world. There was this one guy about two thousand years ago who was fine, decent and perfectly normal, but we killed Him. Lucky for us He rose again and has forgiven us.

Nova Scout, this post seems to have struck a nerve with you… but if you don’t want to risk your conscience being prodded awake, why read this site in the first place?

I hope that is powerful enough to overcome the stench of this post.
This rhetorical shtick is farcical. It’s like the dog of 2 Peter complaining to him that it is in poor taste to bring up the subject of vomit, when it was the dog who forced the issue in the first place. It’s also hypocritical- you don’t really object to what was done, you are trying to shut down ‘discussion’, despite your claim that you believe it is important.

#110 - Dear RoF

Salvation is efficaceous and *does* change people and makes them want to and helps them to overcome sin. 

The Cross and Resurrection broke the power of sin - only our will (and our pride) stops us from availing ourselves of that power.  Humility, being willing to humble oneself, ask for help from God and man (James 5:16) and being transparent and accountable are the tools we must use to overcome deeply entrenched habitual sin.  Some things may be miraculously changed in an instant, other things must be walked out with discipline and practice.
See John 14:15-21 and John 15:5-17, esp John 15:10

All blessings and peace.

Ring of Fire:
It seems to me that some people, on the left and right sides of the aisle, want this conversation to go away because its lead in topic, bestiality, is so abnormal and, well, icky. 
The question is, given the re-ordering of boundaries in TEC, and given the logic used to re-order these boundaries, ala Countryman et all, is it possible that at some time in the future we will see this behavior as something that can be handled “pastorally”?  And pastorally means, well, its not “marriage”, and it was just a house blessing for two friends nudge nudge wink wink, and now that we’ve been doing that for a while, we ought to be doing it in church… 
Invoking the benighted puritans brings out the point that in “queer theology” the gospel is often equated with breaking boundaries, smashing taboos and superstitions of what is “natural” and what is “unnatural.”  Serious thinkers in the field have dropped the idea of “hard-wiring” of orientations, and now invoke an ethic of the radical freedom of the individual to be what they want to be, and who is to judge?  If folks don’t get that the list went from LG to BLG to LBGT, and is now appended by other things, they ain’t paying attention—which is why Jackie posted the article in the first place.  Maybe, just maybe, the ick factor of this particular sin will get people to question, to consider for just a moment, that the logic used to through out the marital boundaries for people with same-sex attractions is used, in the mainstream to argue for other things too, and maybe, just maybe, the fundament
So, the questions are: 1) Are the boundaries of marriage revealed, timeless, and deserving of honor among all people?  2) If those boundaries are revealed and binding on us, what should we do when they are broken?  There, the church has work to do in the realm of grace, repentance, and amendment of life.  And there, the state has work to do as it works to promote virtue and punish vice.  And this side of the eschaton, given both the church’s and the state’s lust to dominate, that will always be messy!  (So, yep, I’m a thoroughgoing Augustinian). 
I’’ be curious to see a response to content to this message, to Sarah’s, and Carls.

It seems to me that some people, on the left and right sides of the aisle, want this conversation to go away because its lead in topic, bestiality, is so abnormal and, well, icky.

And some of us objected to dragging in a story about a sad, disturbed man who needs prayers and who has nothing to do with the Episcopal Church. If the argument is about Countryman’s words, let’s start with that. If there is an example of bestiality from TEC, bring it on. I am as against it as you are. But the pathetic news story above has no connection to TEC.

[115] oscewicee

If the argument is about Countryman’s words, let’s start with that. If there is an example of bestiality from TEC, bring it on. I am as against it as you are. But the pathetic news story above has no connection to TEC.

You have made a legitimate case.  But a discussion of some guy writing something in a book doesn’t have the tangible reality of this story.  People really desire to act this way, and seeing a real live living breathing example brings that reality home in a way abstract argument never can. 

Liberals will see this story and fulminate in moral outrage.  They will condemn this behavior as perverse, and condemn anyone who dares connect it to homosexuality.  But they will have no consistent reason for either condemnation.  This is the glaring weakness of the liberal position.  Liberals predicate sexual morality upon consent, but draw back from following that logic to is inevitable antinomian conclusion.  They still want natural boundaries.  They just expect them to spontaneously grow in a magic field of enlightenment.  And they don’t know what to do when that doesn’t happen.  Stories like this bring out that contradiction like nothing else.

carl

Technical Question:  I keep clicking on the “Stop Receiving Notifications For This Post”....but they still keep coming?  Is there a glitch?  Usually that works the first time… 

Thank you! Liz

[Liberals] will condemn this behavior as perverse, and condemn anyone who dares connect it to homosexuality.

It’s always the same: a group enjoying hard won “rights” always turns and works to withold those very same rights from the group they perceive to be “next in line.”