Tears of the Clowns

Well said, GG.  TEC has become a hobby, not a church.

As the president of SMACK, I must acknowledge that the Gregster has just administered a well deserved “smack”. You da MAN!

the SBBJ snarkster

Are Cursillistas going to have to find something other than rainbow colors to identify ourselves?

Miss Sippi,

As another Miss sippian, Don’t worry about the Cursillo colors, they are not the soft pastels of the rainbow coalition.  I was given a beautiful oatmeal linen alb with a matching stole several years ago, but will never wear the stole, since it is the ‘soft rainbow’.  Ironically, it was a gift from the Diocese of Arkansas to South Dakota, on their sister diocese ‘gift distribution’.
Cursillistas, arise; wear your bright rainbow with pride.
De Colores!

Thank you Greg, you are so dead on!

(high five) Booya!

Greg,
I am with you…“Seriously, folks: Stop it. You’re not being asked to pay any price the rest of us aren’t being asked to pay.” I have no idea how to make them stop. It has gotten to the point where I wonder if we are dealing with emotionally disturbed individuals - “spiritual suicide bombers” (I am going to make this notion stick I tell you).
I hate to say this, but I think their numbers are so great in TEC that everyone should just walk away. Look at it as a natural disaster and go rebuild the house of God. Let them all stay on this iceberg and set them adrift….
Just a thought…mainly from exasperation and frustration…

One of my habits is fly fishing - you shall find me in the pew on Easter Morning in my waist-high rubber waders.  They’re very appropriate for wearing in church these days with the muck nearly waist high…

How in the world can the LGBT folk in the Episcopal Church claim to be second-class citizens?  They are ordained to all three orders, control the House of Bishops, the House of Deputies, and the Executive Council.  In other words, they control TEC.

What more do they want—the rest of us to declare sodomy as the eighth sacrament?

Presumably, then, anyone who dresses in any sort of spring pastel color will be identified as being aligned with the “rainbow presence.” I have a very tasteful black and white outfit that has suddenly become my outfit of choice for Easter Sunday. Thanks for the warning.

I wonder if it’s practical to counter rainbow for rainbow, only the orthodox rainbow features a spectrum of modern martyrs who have died for the Faith from each country/continent?  Something captioned “when all the colours bleed into one”...

I would find it especially hard to credit the claims of LGBT “martyrdom” when there was a pictorial display of true Christian martyrdom in the Narthex or Fellowship Hall.

Let’s see, what to do at the most festive celebration of the Christian year?  I know, let’s perform political protest action at the eucharist.  That’ll show ‘em!

I’d suggest a tasteful, unobtrusive length of black-and-white striped ribbon pinned in a suitable location, to symbolize both the lack of ambiguity in Scriptural moral teaching and the fact that we all need the grace of Christ to find our way from the Dark Side to the Light Side.

Do you remember when Easter Sunday in the Episcopal Church was the celebration of Jesus’ rising from the dead?

In 2003 BP Shaw penned a pastoral letter explaining why he voted for VGR. His only point was that homosexuals “live at the margins of society—like the leper, the poor and the outcasts. Jesus always taught that those at the margins should be brought to the center. “

The justice advocates must think we are not watching TV.

Today the gay culture is anything but the leper, the poor and the outcasts. To wit, Queer Eye for The Straight Guy, Madonna lip locking Britney, Melissa Etheridge discussing her lesbianism in an academy acceptance speech etc. etc. GL are not poor, hold elective offices, become famous movie stars and sit com hosts and apparently even bishops. Somehow I think scripture describes something different when speaking of the marginalized.
Jim

What sacraments are being denied? What rites?

I want to know where I can get one of Sarah’s “Bottom Feeders” medals with oak leaf cluster and ribbons, so that I also can be readily identified. Can these in fact be purchased, or must they be won on the field of battle for meritorious service against our Worthy Opponents?

Must be some “other” folks living on the “margins”, he certainly is not.
Grannie G

Do you remember when Easter Sunday in the Episcopal Church was the celebration of Jesus’ rising from the dead?

DOW - Do you remember when Jesus WAS the reason for the church?

BillS, I think you are onto something. We need to hurry up with a medal design since Easter is about Identification Day this year instead of God.

Thanks, GG, dead spot on with this one.  It truly is a “pity party”, isn’t it?  Persecution is in this world in so many heinous forms, and the position of the LGBT crowd in TEC is most surely not one of them.  Why not start with the persecution and passion of our Risen Lord, Jesus Christ, and the pain and suffering visited upon practicing Christians around the world, indeed, for merely spreading His Good Word?  Or perhaps with the some 27 million men and women who remain in some form of slavery in this world?  Or even those diverse individuals in this country who truly do face prejudice and bigotry in their daily lives (including those who believe in the Truth found in the Scriptures)?  The rainbow colors of the LGBT crowd fade into obscurity in the face of this sort of persecution.

Kudos, Greg!

  I could not have better said it myself!  All I have been seeing on the HOB/D list and on other posts have been whining and “poor little ol’ me!”
Makes me want to ask them if they want some cheese with that whine!

“Until lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender members of the Episcopal Church have full and equal access to all the sacraments and rites of the church, lesbians/gays/bisexuals/transgendered people are essentially second-class members of the Episcopal Church”.

Can someone explain to me how they’ve got so far discussing this in terms of “rights”?  NO ONE has a RIGHT to be a priest or a bishop.  People get turned down for ordination all the time, even HETEROSEXUALS.  Said heterosexuals also don’t have a RIGHT to Christian marriage, either.  My rector turns weddings down all the time if he has doubts about the “sacramentality” of the union.  He gives couples the option of counseling/other professional evaluation, and then he decides.  If they won’t go to a therapist, the possibility of the marriage still remains at the discretion of the priest.  If the answer is “no”, the answer is “no”.  “Rights” have nothing to do with it.

Poor, poor, pitiful me. I’m gay and I have to live in a simply horrid pink ghetto in San Francisco, and go to the bath house every day, and eat sushi, and drink that horrid California Merlot, and wear birkenstocks, and listen to Barbara Streisand records, and ride cable cars, and march in all those “gay pride” parades, and only vote for democrats, and drive a Honda, and on and on and on and on….............

the SBBJ snarkster

Just to say, if the Episcopal Church were denying them sacraments, they would indeed have something to complain about, no matter how rich their lives might be in other respects. As far as I can tell, nothing has been denied GLBT at this point. And there is no entitlement to the priesthood.

stoles?

RIght on Greg.  The “persecution” card has been played out.  I mean, who really believes that anyone here in the good ole’ is suffering on account of faith?  It’s like arguing simply by attending church and taking communion while under a bishop who supports full inclusion one is risking “spiritual suicide!”  That’s crazy talk, there’s no one suffering here!...What? Huh? (reading email) Oh, wait, I take back that last point.  I forgot which side I was on for a moment.

This message should have been clearly sent 40 years ago…not sure there’s a bottom on the slipperly slope now, at least until one reaches the pit.

If only you truly knew of that which you speak.  Few of you, except perhaps for a number of closeted gay men among you can comprehend the issues that face lesbians and gays for just trying to be the people God created us to be.  And before you start the stuff about confessing our sins, most of us do that daily and receive absolution, but often our sins are more about not being charitable to the mean spiritedness I hear so much on this list.  Our sexual orientation is no more inately sinful than yours.  What may or may not be sinful is the relationship, and even a duly married heterosexual couple can be in a very sinful marriage based on how they treat each other.

As far as us controlling the House of Bishops and House of Deputies, that is truly a fantasy filled statement. 

And once again, I am caused to wonder why so many on this list hide behind email addresses that contain no names.  Of what might you be ashamed?

Bruce Garner,
Atlanta

Bruce, this is only more of the label-throwing and “you just don’t understand” rhetoric we always hear on this issue from the LGBT side.  Most of the people who post on this and other sites are neither mean-spirited nor ashamed, nor hiding behind anything.  We do strongly hold our core beliefs, and do not think we should change them because societal mores may be changing.  We disagree, Bruce, and that does not make us evil.

Bruce:

There’s a reason you guys call it “queer”.  It’s about being different.  Any spiritual movement I have ever been blessed by is about being one with others.  Pretty much all of my gay friends would agree that it is about difference.  And that won’t cut it in the Body of Christ.
By the way, that’s my real name and I live in Lexington.  If you want to talk I’m in the phone book or you can e-mail me.
Tom

Bruce,

Where’s the love? “Few of you, except perhaps for a number of closeted gay men among you?” Ouch.  There are some here who (despite being don’t even have a closet, chest-thumping, wife-lusting, can’t wait to see the movie 300 with my guy pals heterosexuals—hmm, maybe I should pick a different movie but you get the picture) have become aware of the struggles and pains endured by our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters in Christ.  Now, doesn’t mean I think the idea of “full inclusion” is worth more than a cup of coffee at 7-11, but I’m just saying be careful of painting with a brush loaded with false assumptions.  The false closeting…must…stop!

And here’s the disconnect:
Few of you, except perhaps for a number of closeted gay men among you can comprehend the issues that face lesbians and gays for just trying to be the people God created us to be.

Bruce, I don’t believe that you are trying to be the people God created you to be.  I don’t know how you got to be the way you are, and science as of yet has not given a definitive answer.  Scripture is very clear that God created us male and female and that sexuality is rightly expressed in the marriage of a man and a woman.  Disordered love and confused sexual identity are not the work of God; they are part of our fallen world.  The fact that you don’t accept this shows how far apart we stand from one another in ecusa these days.

So, the pro-gay shift of General Convention over the last 40 years in a fantasy?  The statements by bishops against the Windsor Report - also fantasies.  The statements by bishops stating that they will not abide by the Windsor Report or the reiteration by the Tanzania Communique - more fantasy.  This all makes me wonder if the good Mr. Garner is not the one living in fantasyland.

“As far as us controlling the House of Bishops and House of Deputies, that is truly a fantasy filled statement.”

Bruce:  A couple of things.

1. I never sign my full name to a post like this to protect myself and my wife against “inclusionary” and “tolerant” people.  Fact is, my clergy wife (who is conservative but not at all an activist type) has had several experiences in which “inclusive” and “tolerant” bishops and lay authorities drop her from approved lists in clergy searches when they find out that she doesn’t agree with TEC’s “majority” theology.  As for myself, I have also been warned by friends that “inclusive” and “tolerant” people will seek to block me from jobs due to my opinions.  Seems to me Bruce, that LGBT folks have a lot more access in TEC and the academies of education then we do.  Quite frankly, I don’t have a lot of sympathy for the “inclusive” crowd when it complains about persecution.

2. Bruce - I believe, and the catholic Church agrees, that we are all born into sin.  The issue here is not who has the most sins to confess - we all stand guilty there.  The issue is the Church declaring a certain sin (i.e. sexual relationships outside monogamous heterosexual marriage) as not being a sin without Scriptural or catholic warrant for so doing.

3. For me to suggest to you Bruce, that the behavior you are engaged in is sinful, and if I have the support of Scripture and the catholic Church in so saying, that does not mean that I am persecuting you, or preventing you from being the person God created you to be.

4. I acknowledge that it must be extremely painful for persons with homosexual desires to hear that God does not bless homosexual relationships.  It must also be extremely painful to hear that you have been diagnosed with cancer, or that you have lost your sight. Creation has fallen and is awaiting its redemption.  We all have struggles, we all have temptations.  Myself, Bruce Garner, Sam Pascoe and Ted Haggard.  The solution is to confess our sins and seek transformation, not to pretend that God blesses it.

Horseman, just read some of the comments posted by readers about GLBT people elsewhere on this and other Christian bulletin boards and then say again that all that is going on is polite disagreement.  Go read some of the things coming out of Sarah Hey’s amen chorus.  I’m shocked that people who regard themselves as followers of Christ could say some of the things I’ve read.

Now, I basically agree with Greg’s point.  LGBT’s shouldn’t be going on about acceptance of their sexuality in church, provided that they aren’t actually being denied anything that it is the church’s duty to provide all seekers.

But the problem is that, although you may encounter a few excesses on the LGBT side if you look hard enough, this LGBT pity-party/world takeover that is supposedly happening is really more straw man than reality.  The great bulk of what I hear on the topic of inclusion—whether into Church or just into society as a whole—is not LGBT people complaining about persecution, but rather, the outraged reaction by conservatives to the imagined aggression of a fearsome, latté-swilling LGBT “enemy” that is purportedly on the brink of consigning Christendom to eternal damnation, and which must be somehow “defeated” in some sort of apocalyptic “battle”.

Every Christian that I have personally known who I came to be aware was LGBT/whatever has been just another brother or sister in Christ engaged in forming a relationship with God just like the rest of us.  I would perhaps object to an LGBT being forceful about telling others all about his or her sexual orientation in church only because I don’t think it’s appropriate to go on about your love life in church, and not because there’s anything offensive about being Gay or Queer or whatever you want to call it.  But so far this hasn’t been a problem for me, and I live in the one of the “bluest” areas of our country.

All sex done for enjoyment’s sake is sin, and we’re all sinners.  Any sexually-active hetero calling an LGBT’s preference an “abomination” is more Pharisee than tax collector.  “Don’t ask, don’t tell” is my position, and that goes for both heteros and LGBT’s.  That sort of talk doesn’t belong in church outside the Confessional, as far as I’m concerned.

No, it’s long past time for both sides of this little schoolyard fight to get over it and move on.  Furthermore, it seems to me that the people condemning the LGBT crowd are the loudest participants in this hollering match, and so they’re the ones who need to “siddown and shuddup” more than anyone else.

Bruce:  See also paragraph 4.27 of “True Union in the Body”:

Having said this, it must be acknowledged that important ‘goods’ can be discerned in same-sex relationships (as indeed in some illicit forms of heterosexual relationships). Something is wrong when the Church refuses to acknowledge that two people in a same-sex relationship may well find they ‘grow steadily in fidelity and in mutual caring, understanding and support…and achieve great, even heroic sacrifice and devotion’. The fact that certain human practices are not wholly devoid of good is, however, not in itself sufficient warrant for the Church to confer legitimacy upon them or commend the practice itself (just as the existence of ‘honour among thieves’ does not legitimate the practice of theft). If the Church refuses to confer legitimacy, this is not to deny that such ‘relationships may have moral integrity in varying degrees without the Church’s formal authorization’. The act of blessing same-sex unions, however, would be tantamount to saying that these good qualities are displayed in homosexual relations as homosexual relations. But this we cannot do. If the Church were to say this, then it would be failing to speak the truth in love according to Scripture and the Christian Tradition.

So, you are correct that sometimes a homosexual relationship may be a better example of Christian love, then a marriage between a man and a woman.  But that is not grounds to legitimize the underlying basis of the homosexual relationship.

Put another way, Bruce, I certainly don’t think homosexual behavior or homosexual relationships are the “worst” sins at all.  Far from it.  However, what TEC is asking us to do is to declare that these aren’t sin at all, and that we can’t do, and that we must fight against, because to accept it is to declare that the Church is “autonomous” from God Himself.

Bruce,
Thank you for coming on this thread and speaking your thoughts.  I agree with a lot of what you say, including your comment about sin in heterosexual marriages.  There is no question that the Episcopal Church is controlled by liberals and that some in high places (yourself included I gather) are gay.  I think maybe that where you and I part ways is the liberal, relativistic, revisionist path that ECUSA has been drifting down for the past four or five decades.  Homosexual behaviour is only one of many areas of innovative departure from 2,000 years of tradition, from the clear authority of the Scriptures as God’s word to us.  I struggle with sin in my life and try very hard to give them to Him and to accept His Grace of forgiveness.  I don’t pretend to comprehend the difficulty of the struggle that homosexuals go through in dealing with their identity, discrimination, rejection, etc.  I think that a solution for many Christian gays is to deny that sexual orientation other than heterosexuality is an expression of the sinful nature that we are all subject to and redeemed only through Jesus’ atonement for our sins on the cross.
I don’t use my last name because I was horrified to Google myself and find a ton of my online comments and I think that a good deal of the anonymity on liberal and reasserter blogs has to do with the fantasy of being “Horseman” or “Gator” although whoever uses “Snarkster” must have a really warped sense of humour. However, feel free to email me.
Bill

Bill C: It’s no big secret that I am Michael Ware of Meridian, Miss. I post under my real name most places but I have almost always been known as the snarkster on Stand Firm. The inspiration for the name came from Barbara+, a partnered lesbian priest from Michigan who used to post here some years ago when the site was young. I always liked her and enjoyed jousting with her, before she bailed out, so I kind of kept the nickname in her honor.
  I don’t think my sense of humor is “warped” although it is certainly a tad off center. I found long ago I was not intellectually or theologically qualified to compete with the theological big boys who hang out here so I fell back on humor to make my points. Sometimes laughter helps with the pain, mine as well as everyone else’s.

the SBBJ snarkster
Resident Smartass

Sorry, A Merry Noise, but I don’t recall ever calling any of this “polite disagreement”.  What I am objecting to is the use of broad-brush statements about “mean-spirited”, “ashamed” and “hiding” behind screen names, much like the label “homophobe” sooner or later gets tossed at almost anyone who disagrees with the LGBT position on these issues.  Simply because any of us disagrees with anything anyone else says, whether it is on a blog, or otherwise, should not ipso facto render us subject to any label or classification.  I am a different person than anyone else on these blogs, and have arrived at my beliefs and opinions through my own journey through life, faulty though it may have been and will continue to be.  I reject being painted with any broad-brush label.  That is my point, as politely as I can say it.
And as for the suggestion that my use of “Horseman” is living out some surreal fantasy, I am signing off for now to go feed my horses.  They don’t think I’m “hiding” at all, but only if I get to the farm on time with the feed.

In addition to controlling the House of Bishops, House of Deputies and Executive Council, the GLBT gang has a firm grip on 815 (especially the media folks there).  Think not?  Just take a headcount of the employees, and you’ll be started by the results.  The infiltration started before the last PB and hasn’t let up.

Merry Noise,regarding loudness and sitting down and shutting up:
Care to let the Rev Ladies Kaeden and Russell and Fr Michael of the honorable opposition hear that as they trumpet terms like bottomfeeders,Stand Limp and other interesting descriptives.

Snarkster,long may you be a ‘troubler of Israel’(1 Kings 18:17-18),showing who the real troublemakers are.

A Merry Noise,
Just what about this excerpt gives you a problem?

provided that they aren’t actually being denied anything that it is the church’s duty to provide all seekers.

The only thing it is the church’s duty to provide is a place to meet Jesus in prayer and penitence, renounce our sins, and to have those sins covered in, and forgiven by, His blood.

It is NOT the Church’s duty to provide anything else…no MDG fundraisers, no LBGT% blessings, no justice and equality meetings; just a hospital for sick people to find their healing.

None of us are denied our needs…IF we come to Him believing and repentant, He is faithful and just to provide our needs (not wants) and to bring us into His righteousness.

Bruce,

...even a duly married heterosexual couple can be in a very sinful marriage based on how they treat each other.

True, but none of us are trying to turn that sinfulness into a sacrament.

The “Stand Firm” logo proclaims, “Be loving in everything you do.”

Hmm.

This mean spirited post, and most of the responses to it, see the LGBT concern for community and safety as something to be treated with mockery, sarcasm, and condescension. I can visualize the celebratory high-fiving. “You da Man!”

Yet this site would have us believe that there is no bigotry within the Anglican Communion, but rather, just a lot of loving, neighborly Anglican folks, acting in the name of scripture and tradition.

The anti-gay legislation now pending before the Nigerian National Assembly, and supported by Bishop Akinola, would impose five-year sentences on same-sex couples who have wedding ceremonies — as well as on those who perform such services and on all who attend. The bill’s vague and dangerous prohibition on any public or private show of a “same sex amorous relationship” — which could be construed to cover having dinner with someone of the same sex — would open any known or suspected gay man or lesbian to the threat of arrest at almost any time. The bill also criminalizes all political organizing on behalf of gay rights. Billed as an anti-gay-marriage act, it is a far-reaching assault on basic rights of association, assembly and expression. Congregations of the TEC, including congregations from California and Virginia, have recently voted to align themselves with Bishop Akinola.

Gene Robinson, as a precaution due to death threats, wore a bullet proof vest to his ordination.

Pretty serious stuff. I would characterize neither example as trivial. I would characterize both as bigoted.

I also strongly hold my core beliefs, which have not been changed on a whim, or by the changes in societal mores, but by trusting in the Holy Spirit.

Perhaps, if any of you had a LGBT brother, sister, parent, child or friend who was beaten or terrorized simply for being LGBT, you might feel differently about “goofy rainbows.”

YBIC

RE: ” . . . most of us do that daily [confess our sins] and receive absolution, but often our sins are more about not being charitable to the mean spiritedness I hear so much on this list.”

LOL. 

Yes [mournful look—shaking head sadly], most of *my* sins have to do with not being charitable to all those mean hateful people out there who don’t do what I want, too. 

Sad, how abused I am by cruel people who won’t believe what I tell ‘em to and who then simply *force* me into being “uncharitable” in response to their “meanspiritedness”—but as far as any, you know . . . *real* sins . . . well, should I ever commit any of those I’m sure that I’ll confess them, too.

; > )

RE: “Of what might you be ashamed?”

Interesting that Bruce Garner wants commenters to be ashamed here at StandFirm.

RE: “Go read some of the things coming out of Sarah Hey’s amen chorus.”

Wait.

Where’s my amen chorus?  Didn’t know I had one.  Please let me know where such a chorus is so that I can go over and encourage them to keep it up.  ; > )

RE: “Furthermore, it seems to me that the people condemning the LGBT crowd are the loudest participants in this hollering match, and so they’re the ones who need to “siddown and shuddup” more than anyone else.”

I’m sure that most reappraisers would like for reasserters to sit down, shut up, and send in our pledge money.

I am greatly comforted by the knowledge that we will not be sitting down and shutting up.

It will be a long number of years as this moves along.

Greg—thanks for posting this piece.

Sometimes laughter helps to point out and highlight the sheer ridiculousness of a lobby group’s claims.

This mean spirited post, and most of the responses to it, see the LGBT concern for community and safety as something to be treated with mockery, sarcasm, and condescension. I can visualize the celebratory high-fiving. “You da Man!”

Being “loving” does not mean agreeing with everything your opponent says; neither does it require one to handle one’s opponents’ shortcomings - and the histrionics to which I refer are most certainly shortcomings - with kid gloves.

Yet this site would have us believe that there is no bigotry within the Anglican Communion, but rather, just a lot of loving, neighborly Anglican folks, acting in the name of scripture and tradition.

False, as any regular reader here knows. We are all fallen, all sinners. We recognize bigotry in our midst, and rail against it. But please stop begging the question: Opposition to the gay agenda is not bigotry.

The anti-gay legislation now pending before the Nigerian National Assembly, and supported by Bishop Akinola, would impose five-year sentences on same-sex couples who have wedding ceremonies — as well as on those who perform such services and on all who attend. The bill’s vague and dangerous prohibition on any public or private show of a “same sex amorous relationship” — which could be construed to cover having dinner with someone of the same sex — would open any known or suspected gay man or lesbian to the threat of arrest at almost any time. The bill also criminalizes all political organizing on behalf of gay rights. Billed as an anti-gay-marriage act, it is a far-reaching assault on basic rights of association, assembly and expression. Congregations of the TEC, including congregations from California and Virginia, have recently voted to align themselves with Bishop Akinola.

Shall we have a discussion, or shall we read your re-postings of the same tired old Changing Attitudes press release?

Gene Robinson, as a precaution due to death threats, wore a bullet proof vest to his ordination.

So he says. As it happens, several conservatives, myself included, received death threats in Columbus last June. We dealt with it. Get over yourselves.

Perhaps, if any of you had a LGBT brother, sister, parent, child or friend who was beaten or terrorized simply for being LGBT, you might feel differently about “goofy rainbows.”

Sigh….

OK, once more with feeling: For two years in college, my roommate was a gay man. I have inserted myself between a dear gay friend of mine, and three pool-cue-wielding rednecks, to keep him from being beaten. Don’t presume to come here and lecture us about not knowing gay people, or not being willing to put our personal safety on the line for them, or actually doing so when the threat was real.

Wow. You think you make your point about drama queens, and more of them just come out of the woodwork.

Earlier this week Bruce Garner was quoted by ENS:

He recalled that while being in church on Ash Wednesday he found it “painful for me to keep replaying parts of that communiqué and wondering if I was welcome in that place.” Garner said that if he, who has felt for years that he was welcomed in the Episcopal Church, wondered how new members of the church must be feeling.

If Bruce has been made to feel unwelcome at All Saints
in Atlanta, he should tell them to find a new Head Verger.

Congregations of the TEC, including congregations from California and Virginia, have recently voted to align themselves with Bishop Akinola.

Ask yourself why this is. Think about it really hard. I’ll give you a clue. It doesn’t have a darn thing to do with homophobia. And if you think about it a little harder, maybe you will see that if TEC had conducted itself a little differently this need not have happened.

Perhaps, if any of you had a LGBT brother, sister, parent, child or friend who was beaten or terrorized simply for being LGBT,

Perhaps you shouldn’t make assumptions about what experience we have had with gay people. Perhaps you might ask yourself if the experiences we have had of gay people - and the suffering we have seen - might have led us to believe that there is wisdom in the orthodox Biblical position and that the way to best love our gay brothers and sisters is not to tell them to “Carry on!” - anymore than we would wish someone to tell us to indulge our own desires when they harm us.

Perhaps, if any of you had a LGBT brother, sister, parent, child or friend who was beaten or terrorized simply for being LGBT, you might feel differently about “goofy rainbows.”

I had a sister-in-law, sister of my heart, my labor/birth coach with me during the birth of my first child, and she happened to be a lesbian.  We had a close friendship, to say the least (childbirth doesn’t present one at one’s best, y’know), and went through a lot together.
 
At one time in our relationship, she demanded that I <u>“approve”</u> and <u>“affirm”</u> her lifestyle and choice of lovers.  I told her I couldn’t do that, I told her why, and I told her that I love her very much.  She told me I couldn’t possibly love her unless I approved of her sex life and “identity” (???????????????), and removed herself from our relationship.  We were able to come to a strained “peace” a couple of years before she and her partner were killed in a car accident just before they turned 40.  That was almost 10 years ago, and I still weep for what was lost, and agonize over whether I will see my sister again.  Please don’t tell me that the LGBT people have a corner on the market on pain in this controversy.  Ever.

Not sure if a response to the email ends up here, so I am posting.

Thanks Bill.  We do see things a bit differently.  I don’t see any “departure” from 2,000 years of tradition.  What I see is the same thing every generation starting with Jesus Himself has done:  Interpret in light of our present circumstances and additional information.  We really follow none of the Old Testament proscriptions found in Leviticus, for example.  There is no honesty or integrity in singling out those dealing allegedly with homosexual behavior to enforce those.  We don’t enforce anything about lying with a woman during her monthly cycle.  We have changed our way of looking at the enslavement of human beings, despite the words in Scripture.  We no longer believe the earth to be the center of the universe and even Rome has forgiven the early scientists and reversed their excommunication for their teachings.

The most bothersome thing to me is that some have elevated sexual orientation to the level of doctrine.  Yet we see no mention of sexuality of any form in the Ten Commandments or the Summary of the Law. Jesus spoke virtually nothing about human sexuality.  So why do we want to elevate something like sexuality to a doctrinal level?  Makes no sense at all.  What we should be doing is what Jesus taught and what He taught centered around right relationships or righteousness and had nothing to do with the “law” per se, other than the loving our neighbors as ourselves summation.

As one of sincere faith who has been through a conversion experience and who has a very personal relationship with Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour, I get a little more than irritated by those who discount that because of my sexual orientation.  That is not theirs to judge, whether they be lay, deacon, priest, bishop or even archbishop. That’s between me and God and will remain so until the day I face my Maker and account for my life on this earth.  And in my heart of hearts, I doubt that I will hear a single question about my sex life.  Instead I will be asked to account for how well or how poorly I loved God with my heart and soul and mind and strength and how well I loved my neighbor.

Bruce Garner

Bruce, I am not learned as you are, nor do I sit in the councils of the Church, as you do.  I am a Christian woman, sinner as you are, and struggling with this as we all are.  The points you make are valid, but I don’t believe that sexuality is at the crux of this situation.  That being said ( I know, everything before the but is bull, but bear with me), here is a relative pew-potato’s view.

1) God did a lot of “new” and “different” things with His people Israel – set them apart from a lot of the cultural standards, both in Old Testament times, and New Testament times.

2) God has not shown ME (unless I’m not looking, and I have been) any examples of partnered homosexual relationships (not even a loving, monogamous, GOOD relationship) that He has blessed within the Scriptures.  I have asked other learned people, and have not been at all satisfied with the answers – vague hints about Ruth and Naomi, and David and Jonathan is the closest I’ve gotten.  I don’t seem to be the only one who is unsatisfied in this respect.

3) If God had indeed intended this type of relationship to be a <u>holy</u> relationship, set aside for His purpose, don’t you think He would have told us?  Sometime in the last 5000 or so years?  A clue, perhaps?  There are many examples of hetero relationships, but….

I can hear the arguments about cultural filters, and the mind of the writers of the Scripture, but go back to #1 – LOTS of the things He laid down for His people were just way out there in terms of the culture and the times.  Don’t you think He could have made Himself understood, if this was His intention?  I believe He could, can, and <u>will</u> make Himself understood – if that is His intention.  I stand unconvinced that it is, and I stand by the centuries of experience and reason and most importantly, the example of God and His relationship with His people in Scripture.

Thanks for “listening”.
Gillian

Snarkster,
That comment of mine about you was a joke….. I know who you are and love your role here.  AND by the way, I stand shoulder to shoulder with you as I (at least) wish I could enter the erudite, sophisticated discussions I follow.

Bill Channon
an occasional wannabe smartass

“All sex done for enjoyment’s sake is sin”

You have to be kidding.  If you’re right then i’m in real trouble.

Bruce:

“If you love me (with your heart, mind, soul and strength), follow my commandments.”

Bruce Garner said:
What we should be doing is what Jesus taught and what He taught centered around right relationships…

The right relationship regarding human sexuality and sexual behavior is set forth in Genesis.  God created humankind male and female.  God joined together male and female for the primary though not sole purpose of procreation.  We understand that this union takes place in the marriage of one man and one woman.  Only within the marriage relationship is sexual intimacy good or blessed or holy.  Any other type of sexual activity, whether heterosexual or homosexual, stands in direct opposition to God’s created order, and is, therefore, both disordered and sinful. 

To insist otherwise is for the creature to tell the Creator what is or what should be.

bruce, I hope you don’t mind a little fisking:

“The most bothersome thing to me is that some have elevated sexual orientation to the level of doctrine.”

Much like St. Paul does in Ephesians when he says that the sexually immoral will not inherit the kingdom of God.  The doctrine: soteriology.

“Yet we see no mention of sexuality of any form in the Ten Commandments or the Summary of the Law.”

Wow, I can’t believe this.  I wouldn’t let this level of ignorance pass from one of our 8th grade confirmands.  Are you not familiar with the commandment against adultery?  Next, are you aware that in the Jewish faith there are not 10 Commandments; there are 613.  The Ten Commandments are understood as categories.  The commandment against adultery stands for sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman.

” Jesus spoke virtually nothing about human sexuality.  So why do we want to elevate something like sexuality to a doctrinal level?  Makes no sense at all.”

Yes, the first sentence is pretty much true.  What Jesus did speak about was marriage between a man and a woman, and he spoke of it from Genesis.  The Church has taught that marriage between a man and a woman is part of the creational intent of God.  Doctrine:  creation.  Makes perfect sense.

“What we should be doing is what Jesus taught and what He taught centered around right relationships or righteousness and had nothing to do with the “law” per se, other than the loving our neighbors as ourselves summation.”

There’s just this little thing: “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.”  And then there’s that other little thing in Matthew when Jesus said He didn’t come to abolish the law.  Right relationships, according to Jesus, Paul, Revelation, the OT begin with a proper understanding of marriage, which includes a proper understanding of human sexuality.

So why do we want to elevate something like sexuality to a doctrinal level?

Are you literate?  Every mention of the marriage covenant in Scripture is bound up in heterogeneity - he and she—> them.  The Designer designed us for the marriage covenant, and the marriage covenant for us.  What remains when we tamper with the design of the covenant, is derivative, at best . 

Yes, derivative, at best.  And a derivative is not the same as what it is derived from. 

If then a homosexual “union” that resembles a marriage between man and woman, is not the same as the marriage covenant itself, then what is it?

It would be nothing.  Adiaphora. 

Happy?  Don’t be.  For on the other hand, we’d still have the hedges that God has built around the he/she—> them design of the marriage covenant.  Hedges that would not apply to homosexual “unions.” 

Which ultimately boils down to this:  Homosexual unions would have to be completely amoral.  Therefore there would be no difference between the homosexual “union” and what goes on in many adult bookstores.  Fidelity, infidelity, promise, divorce, would all be meaningless in that sort of union.  As would trust. 

And, your self-righteousness would be irrelevant as well.  For you could not be better (in your “partnership”) than the sex-addict who acquired HIV at a glory-hole.  Both would be that seemingly innocent, adiaphora. 

If you yet prefer your game of Russian roulette, then by all means, keep playing.  It is after all, a taste of your just desserts for putting the Word of God on a Procrustean Bed.  Enjoy it while you can.  Just don’t expect us to do penance when you inevitably hurt yourself or someone else. 

You can live with that uncertainty, or you can deny yourself, take up your cross (even as the rest of us do, in matters sexual) and follow Him. 

Meanwhile, pardon me if I don’t delight in witnessing another creature made in God’s Image, destroy themselves.

A Merry Noise saith:

All sex done for enjoyment’s sake is sin, and we’re all sinners.

and then did Bill C. freak out.
Fear not, Bill C.  A Merry Noise has neglected reading the BCP, page 423:  “The union of husband and wife in heart, body, and mind is intended by God for their mutual joy; for the help and comfort given one another in prosperity and adversity; and, when it is God’s will, for the procreation of children and their nurture in the knowledge and love of the Lord.”

Yer good.

uffda51 proclaimed,

Gene Robinson, as a precaution due to death threats, wore a bullet proof vest to his ordination.

The death threats were never verified, probably trumped up to gain pity points, and nobody showed up with a gun. Would it be tacky to suggest someone enjoyed dressing up for the party.

If VGR would slip on the Kevlar Fruit of the Looms instead, he’d be miles ahead.

Jamesw said:

Put another way, Bruce, I certainly don’t think homosexual behavior or homosexual relationships are the “worst” sins at all.  Far from it.

If this is true then why aren’t we all wroked up about gluttony?  We just ordained a plump bishop here in Texas and nobody said a word about her manner of life. 

Many on the conservative side behave as if they think it were the worst sin of all time.  I guess it’s this behavior that has led me to believe that they really felt that way.

Could you say something about why, if homosexuality is such a run-of-the-mill sin, it is treated as if it were indeed the “worst?” 

Linda McMillan
Austin

If this is true then why aren’t we all wroked up about gluttony?  We just ordained a plump bishop here in Texas and nobody said a word about her manner of life.

Because no one is asking us to call the sin of gluttony righteous and bless it..

Could you say something about why, if homosexuality is such a run-of-the-mill sin, it is treated as if it were indeed the “worst?”

It just might have something to do with the fact that it gets thrown in your face every which way you turn.

You might also add Jackie, most people who are overweight are actually trying to lose the extra pounds instead of forcing everyone around them to get fat too.

TonyinCNY said:

Bruce, I don’t believe that you are trying to be the people God created you to be.

Here’s the thing, and I think this is one of the core problems in TEC today,  what any of us believe about another’s spirituality is simply irrelevant.  We don’t do this sort of thing, assessing one another’s spiritual life.  There is a time and a place for that, in direction or with trusted friends… not on a blogging forum.  And yet it has become such a common practice that I hardly even notice it anymore. 

I’ve taken a break from my email lists and all the blogs.  Just since Ash Wednesday.  I really don’t even know what I am doing here tonight… just checking in maybe.  But, confronting this harshness—and let’s just be clear, you conservatives can be mean sometimes.  — Confronting this after just a brief respite brings it into focus.  It’s not so much the constant disagreement that’s been wearing on me.  It has been the assumptions, the judgment. 

You people don’t even know me.  You have no idea who am.  Yet, TonyinCNY has an opinion about whether or not I am trying to please God.  You don’t know, TonyinCNY.  You don’t know, and you don’t have a right to say anything about it.  It’s out of line.

Timothy Fountain implies that church is a hobby for me.  He doesn’t know either. 

JHGraves paints with a brush which is equally broad and flawed but he has a happier take on things.  He says that, Gay men and lesbians “… are not poor, [that we] hold elective offices, become famous movie stars and sit com hosts and apparently even bishops.”  Yeah, that’s right baby.  I’m a rock star.  We are all big movie stars.  That is certainly a little cheerier but it’s not at all who I am either. 

Jamesw says, “For me to suggest to you Bruce, that the behavior you are engaged in is sinful,…” as if he actually had any idea of what kind of behavior Bruce engages in.  Or, me for that matter.  I have made a careful review of this day just past.  There is absolutely no causative relationship between me being a lesbian and any of the things I have done today.  I make this statement with confidence.  You assume you know something about my activities because I am a lesbian.  That is getting really old, really old.  You don’t know me.  You don’t know what I do. 

Horseman,  my favorite of the group,  finally interjects something I can agree with.  He says:

“I am a different person than anyone else on these blogs, and have arrived at my beliefs and opinions through my own journey through life, faulty though it may have been and will continue to be.  I reject being painted with any broad-brush label.  That is my point, as politely as I can say it.”

Bingo!  That is exactly what I am saying.  And, from now on, I won’t paint so broadly and I hope you all won’t either.

I will never be who you say I am.  You do not have the right to define me.  If you want to spend your time trying, well OK.  But I am telling you that when I want to know who I am I look to my big red Baptist Bible and it’s all right in there.  I am a child of the Most High, the apple of God’s eye, so precious in fact that the hairs on my big gay head are numbered down to the very greyest one.  Say what you want.  I’m sticking with what I know.

Look, I have often painted with broad brush strokes too.  It’s a hazard, sometimes I succumb.  But, I have made a good faith effort in my listening process (even though my own bishop won’t) and I am listening for your stories and beliefs and rationales.  I hope I always treat you respectfully, and individually.  I hope I don’t make assumptions about you based on some unfounded (or even founded!) bias I have.  Please forgive me if I have assumed facts not in evidence, as I forgive you.  And, please, take Horseman’s advice.  I will.

Linda McMillan
Austin

Why not just call everyone a person?  If I look hard enough in The Bible I can find ways to support any position 100 times over.  It saddens me to hear the mean comments made to any group of people that would cause pain to them…is that what this site is really about?  It seems to me there is much said here often that gives me food for thought…but I have to read a lot of mean spirited things to get to the worthwhile stuff. 
We call ourselves Christians, followers of Christ, but Christ wouldn’t have gone about making his points the way some of you do.  God gets to judge us all in the end…It’s not our job…my job is to love my neighbor whoever that person may be…I always found that to be pretty clear.

My question is, how do orthodox pastors respond to a rainbow presence on Easter morning?

Personally, I will follow the Roman Catholic model.

During announcements, I will ask those with rainbow sashes etc to step into the side room where I will read the Rite 1 preface to the Eucharist and invite those living in a non-celibate homosexual life-style or relationship to repent of this sin. If they are ready to do so or at the very least admit that this is a sin that they want to be rid of, I will invite them to the rail sans the sash. If not then, being in open, willful and notorious sin, they will not be given communion.

Each time I visit/post to the Stand Firm site, I seem to come away with the same or very similar observations (in no particular order of importance):

—There is a tendency on the part of a number of folks to make fun of and/or disrespect the ideas and beliefs of those with whom they disagree

—There seems to be a palpable fear of actually thinking about one’s faith, instead there is much quoting and rehashing of what get labeled as “traditional” values and interpretations as if there has never been any change in how the church has viewed everything for the last 2,000 plus years

—There doesn’t seem to be much of the joy that should be present simply from worshiping the Risen Christ as our Lord and Saviour.  If the joy is present, it is rarely evident in the postings, and I find that so sad.  Jesus is truly my light and my salvation and I feel the fire of the Holy Spirit burning within me and it is something I want others to share.  There is joy in that….yet I really do not see it in the postings to Stand Firm.

—There seems to be a serious disconnect between what is proclaimed here and what Jesus taught.  The MDG’s are dismissed and minimized in importance, yet for me, they become the embodiment of what Jesus clearly tells us to do near the end of the 25th Chapter of Matthew’s Gospel.  We are told by Jesus to tend to the sick and poor and imprisoned and to feed the hungry and water the thirsty and basically do what is part of a right relationship with each other.  And we are warned that what we do or fail to do for each other we do or fail to do for Him.  That’s rather chilling if we really put much thought into it.  Yet it is what our Lord and Saviour told us to do.

—There seems to be another disconnect between how the MDG’s, the references to Matthew above and what we read in the Letter of James interconnect with us in the living out of our faith.  The growling of an empty stomach can easily drown out words of salvation that we might be trying to preach or teach, so we need to take care of the needs of the physical body as and most likely before we try to take care of the needs of the salvation of the soul.  Teeth chattering from cold make it difficult to hear the words of hope we might offer to someone who is homeless and without hope, so we need to help them find shelter from the elements as we embark on teaching them the ways of faith.  A mind and body weakened from the ravages of disease is too distracted to focus on our proclamation of the Gospel to hear the words of salvation we might share, so our first task is to heal before we preach.  James sums this all up with something on the order of how poorly we minister when we tell someone to go, be blessed, be well and do nothing to address the needs they have that are an obstacle to blessedness and wellness.

It is always my goal to be as patient, calm and irenic as possible when I post to any website.  And I have a Pollyanna-ic expectation of the same in return.  In a similar vein, I will make room at the table, the table of God, for anyone and everyone, regardless of how much we may disagree over various issues.  Yet the reciprocal rarely takes place.  No matter what our differences, sisters and brothers, we do have one thing in common, and that is our love for our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.  Do we sometimes forget that too?

Lenten blessings to all.

Bruce Garner
Atlanta

Bruce, if thinking about one’s faith means making it fit one’s lifestyle, then you’re right, many people on this site are total morons.  However, if thinking about one’s faith means considering how we can conform our lives to the teachings of Scripture, I would say that the people who post here are infinitely smarter than the liberals of ecusa.  One of the problems in ecusa is that the supposed smart party does very poor theology (which takes thinking).  To Set Our Hope on Christ is exhibit one in showing how poorly liberals do theology.

Bruce: Joy - you must mean the kind that absolutely emanates from Elizabeth Kaeton.  Love and respect - by this you must mean the kind of love and respect that is accorded conservatives by Elizabeth, Jake/Terry, and a host of our liberal sites.  I see what you mean.

Bruce Garner:

Usually (though there are exceptions) I stay out of this type of banters. There are many better apologist here who certainly have better writing better writing abilities. I’ll actually do a point by point reply, for I believe your coming from left field, out-field, maybe the bleachers behind left field (sorry Sarah, I’m not that familiar with Tennis).

—1) Poking fun - this should be a warning that your points are worth ridicule, meaning they are being received as ridiculous. Often a falling in Aristotelian logical constructs.

—2) No we just don’t accept your questioning as valid use of our time. There plenty of evidence of contradiction to where we are thinking and debating, David and Matt have written many provocative articles which people debate different angles. We’ll debate a pure Calvinist bent, there not been a point raised in issues you care about that have not been easily shot down, except maybe on certain angle.

—3) There’s lots of joy in the Risen Christ here, stay out of the fray of the debates and see the jokes the laughter. There’s a whole lot of silliness. There’s Greg’s & Sarah post of special needs triumphs which hopefully transcends the issues. I think you’ve tied your joy too much to your position of the issues. I’d let go of your agenda and celebrate the joy of Christ, for that agenda will consume your mind.

[I write as one who struggle with a charismatic bully and blatant favoritism [nothing dealing with 1.10 issues], it sucks, this is happening at some leading parishes - C.S. Lewis “The Inner Ring” applies to all parties, I’ve been chased out of two places by the bully and lack of care by clergy. I’ll share that can be all consuming, I have a need to be accepted, worse it’s nothing to do with a known behavior I could modify. Yet, recently I’ve seen the number of way the Lord have fought for me, in fact part of my trouble is I’m given something the bully wants, but it recently occurred to me how the Lord keeps an endless supply of replacement of the things while slowly letting the bully’s area fade. Now which should I focus on, the continuing area of trouble or the small gifts given in quiet form? Often joy is found in letting go, them it’s found even in the places where we thought it the place of difficulty].

— 4 & 5 The MDG are not the work of the Church, they are the work of the UN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [and a few more “!” too].

If you to criticize the Church in the US is not doing enough to support the poor, the widow and the outcast, I’d agree with you. If you wanted to say we’re more concern about buildings and music styles than soup kitchens, I’d probably agree with you.

A healthy church should be two dimensional: both vertical and horizontal. The vertical dimension of the church is the one through which people renew their souls through knowing and worshipping Almighty God. The horizontal dimension is the way the church reaches out to meet the needs of fellow human beings wherever they may be. Most churches seem to focus on one or the other. Taken together, the horizontal and vertical dimensions formed the cruciform (cross-shaped) vision of the Church of the Resurrection [AMiA].

The MDG are very good things. I appalled the UN for them. I believe it is the task of the wealthy to help the less advantage. I’m challenged by the needs in the world and think the governance can have a place in helping the needs.

However, it’s not the task of governance to do this task—ultimately government’s task is to keep the peace, that’s the most basic definition to all forms of governance from territorial warlord to complex constitutional structure.

The Church is given good works, prepared for us in advance, why? That they may see them & give glory to God who is in Heaven. MDG give glory to the UN. We need to compete and out give the UN for we are the people of Christ. Ironically we might discover we didn’t compete at all and the true winners were those who were helped.

May the Lord richly bless you this Lenten season. May He convict your heart of any thing that impairs your relationship with Him, give you the strength to lay it aside. May all the focus on our falleness bring us more to the joy of the Celebration of debts paid and power given, truly a double cure. Looking in expectation to shout the “H” (or “A”) word again!!!!

—There seems to be a palpable fear of actually thinking about one’s faith,

Pardon me, Mr. Garner, but talk about a broad brush and making assumptions. Perhaps it makes you feel better to believe that we don’t think about our faith. Therefore, we are more dismissable. Think again.

—There doesn’t seem to be much of the joy that should be present simply from worshiping the Risen Christ as our Lord and Saviour.

This place is something of a refuge for members of a very troubled church - it’s only natural that we discuss those troubles. This doesn’t happen on the liberal blogs? But our joy is here too. And our joy is where we worship and in our homes and communities. Forgive me, but I haven’t seen the joy in your postings here either?

The MDG’s are dismissed and minimized in importance, yet for me, they become the embodiment of what Jesus clearly tells us to do near the end of the 25th Chapter of Matthew’s Gospel.

The goals are very important - they are very incomplete, too, as they leave out the most important one and, as someone has said here, they are not ambitiuos enough. I would like to hear more about what TEC actually intends to do to help achieve them, and I ardently hope that is not simply to hand money to the U.N. Help should come with a human face - and hands that share the labour and hearts that share the hope. You say wait to spread the good news after all are fed and warm? If it’s good news, can it wait??? I thank God that our forbears were not so parsimonious and selfish - or indifferent? - about sharing the good news. Let it come with the help, not after. Let them know the help comes because we love God and because of God, we love God in them. Is that so hard? Is it not what we were told?

Wishing you a blessed Lenten season.

Well, this has been a fascinating read. 

I was admonished the other night, by a “flea collar,” with this:  “It’s not about religion; it’s about people.”  I see, it’s not about faithful discipline; it’s about warm fuzzies.  Got it.  No need for crucibles.  Not only can a camel get through the eye of the needle, it would seem fleets of MAC trucks can, as well, as long as they look pretty and the owners have bought sufficient carbon offsets.

I thank Fr. Kennedy for posting the correct clergy response to this event, if it happens in your parish.  But there may be people wearing the sashes who are not themselves involved in this sin, but are advocates for the sin.  They also should not be given communion, since their teaching contradicts the teaching of the church.  I think perhaps their sin might be worse, because they have not themselves struggled with the great sorrow of being “different,” of not naturally wanting what God wants, and yet they set those who do face this struggle on the wrong path. We’re all sinners, but lots of us don’t struggle with issues of this magnitude.  Instead, we make spiritual messes of ourselves by committing, over and over, less noticeable sins which are just as bad, or perhaps worse, because we don’t struggle as hard with them.

I don’t use my surname here because it’s my husband’s, it’s unusual, he is well-known in his line of work, and my opinions are mine, not his.  Also, I am living with said husband in India, not far from where the young Christians were beaten in the article Greg cites.  I’d rather not be identified since I am very visible.  My Christian pastor here tells me that he is at risk when he preaches to non-Christians.  Beatings and worse are not uncommon.  The behavior of Americans as it is seen in movies, on TV, and in the newspapers, is not at all helpful to the reputation of Christians here or to their ministry.  When the Anglican church is identified in the news as a pro-gay organization, which Hindus and Muslims alike consider degraded, this makes my pastor’s position even more difficult.

Bruce:

I may not agree with you, but I admire the hell out of you for coming into a deal like this and being heard.  YOU da man!  I have always felt like in ECUSA we don’t really talk, although that is changing.  Keep coming back! 

Now to serious business.  You are in the heart of “Cat"lanta Georgia where my UK Wildcats are going to sweep to the finals of the SEC tournament this weekend.  So if you’re looking for a little basketball action Kentucky style, head down to the Ga. dome.  As teams lose, there’ll be a lot of tix floating around.

Wish I could be there!  And good luck with the GBLT agenda, but it is doomed.

Keep posting!

Tom

OK for the record, and “to put it as clearly as I can,” I don’t think Greg should have posted this.  There.  I pulled a Mark Lawrence!  Bruce, sorry it took so long for me to say it in such a clear manner.

OK W.G., WHY should Greg have not posted this? It is a blatant attempt to hijack Easter services for obviously divisive purposes. I don’t go to church, particularly on Easter Sunday, to watch political protests and gay pride parades.

There is one indisputable thing you can say about garbage: It smells a lot worse when it is uncovered. I thank God there are people like Greg and the gang who are uncovering all the garbage for us.

the SBBJ snarkster

OK for the record, and “to put it as clearly as I can,” I don’t think Greg should have posted this.

WG:
From time to time I have read some items on SFiF that I don’t think should have been posted.  However, I am cognizant that it’s not my blog.  I don’t feel as though I should complain when Greg, Matt, Jackie, Sarah, et al make an editorial decision with which I disagree.  I wish others would extend that courtesy as well.  If I’m invited to a wedding I wouldn’t criticize the families choice of music at the recption.

Linda McMillan from Austin,

Thanks for joining the fray and especially thanks for making my point. Now will you please tell that to Bishop Shaw?

Jimbo

To Cindy T.

“Mutual Joy” is rather vague, don’t you think?  If you are correct, and sex within the confines of marriage is not sin, then that changes everything.  Me oh my, those of us fortunate enough to have been conceived in wedlock are a lot closer to Christ then we ever imagined, for we too, were conceived without sin.

A Merry Noise:
Your conception within the bounds of your parents’ marraige was not sin.  It was actually obedience to God’s plan, but OOPS - the bad news, we all have sin in our DNA from our greatgreatgreatgreat…... grandparents, Adam and Eve, when they introduced sin into the Garden.  The Good News is that Jesus, and only Jesus, can take away that sin - every time we fall - if we repent and turn from our sin.

And yes, “mutual joy” can mean a lot of things, all of them good, as long as it’s mutual, and joyful and in a marraige between a man and a woman covenanted with God.

I have been married 18 years and I am still learning what all that means in actual practice.

Dear Merry Noise, 
It sounds like you are confusing the sin of the parent with the sin of the child, which is NOT what “original sin” is about.  God told us (Ezekiel chapter 18) that the sins of the father are not visited upon the children.  We are ALL born in sin, no matter what our parents’ marital state is.  You are not responsible for your parents’ sins, nor are they responsible for yours - it’s all on you, and the way out is Jesus.

Along with Tom Dupree, Jr., I want to commend Bruce Garner not just for reading Stand Firm, but having the courage to post as well.  I’ve long felt there’s too little real dialogue between folks on opposite sides of this issue, and I want to thank you, Bruce, for weighing in here.

I’d like to comment on some of your remarks regarding Scripture proscriptions of homosexual acts.  You say:

What I see is the same thing every generation starting with Jesus Himself has done:  Interpret in light of our present circumstances and additional information.  We really follow none of the Old Testament proscriptions found in Leviticus, for example.  There is no honesty or integrity in singling out those dealing allegedly with homosexual behavior to enforce those.  We don’t enforce anything about lying with a woman during her monthly cycle.  We have changed our way of looking at the enslavement of human beings, despite the words in Scripture.  We no longer believe the earth to be the center of the universe and even Rome has forgiven the early scientists and reversed their excommunication for their teachings.

Most TEC clergy have been taught, and therefore teach, that the use of Scripture in this debate revolves around certain specific texts, as you indicate above, at the same time appealing to advances in scientific knowledge.  What they ignore is Jesus’ own understanding of Scripture: 

< “17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.”

Jesus in no way interpreted the OT law “in light of our present circumstances and additional information.”  He understood and taught that absolute and eternal applicability of the Law—every “stroke of a letter”—over human behavior.  This includes the examples often advanced by revisionists like stoning children for sassing their parents, intercourse during menstruation, etc.  In fact, Jesus **intensified** the proscriptions of the Law by defining murder not just as killing, but as unjustified anger (Matthew 5:22), and adultery not just as behavior but as lustful intent (Matthew 5:28).

How do we account for this?  We can’t—only Jesus can.  As the perfect human, he obeyed the righteous demands of the Law—all of them—including the righteous demand that “all shall die for their sins” (Jeremiah 31:30).  He lived in fulfillment of the moral law, and died in fulfillment of the ceremonial law of the Old Testament. 

The notion that somehow OT believers could meet its standards, or worse, that NT believers can meet Christ’s standards, is unbiblical.  Listen to what Peter says at the Council of Jerusalem in rebutting the idea that NT believers should be circumcised and follow the Law: 

“10 Now therefore why are you putting God to the test by placing on the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear?
11 On the contrary, we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”

The fact that Jesus did not inveigh specifically against homosexual behavior (or against war, or slavery, or wearing clothing made from mixed fibers, for example) doesn’t mean he had no opinion on the subject. To the contrary, he endorsed the Law completely, saying, “the Scripture cannot be broken.” (John 10:35)  All humanity stands condemned under the Law, but Jesus, in his death on the cross, has **borne that condemnation and atoned completely for our guilt**.  Jesus didn’t die for what Copernicus ultimately discovered to be the truth about cosmogony, or what science so-called purports to have revealed about human sexuality.  He died to atone for the sins of human beings who have abrogated, in innumerable instances, the eternal, immutable Law of the eternal, immutable God.

By God’s grace, the apostles saw that Gentile believers should not be required to follow the Law that Jews like themselves couldn’t keep in the first place.  We are therefore exempt from the ceremonial aspects of OT Law, but in its moral dimension, we must accept its standards—and confess as sin and repent of any departure we make from them—including homosexual behavior.

This debate is not about cherry-picking texts which support or rebut one’s argument.  It is about seeing what Scripture says about how God defines human beings as created in his image, and how God intends for those human beings to live.

I have probably lost all sanity for even thinking about responding to most of what I have read, but I’ve been called crazy before.  So here are a few responses.  Do with them as you wish.  Based on past experience, you will rip them apart, missing any points that might be made in their entirety.  Part 1 of 2.

Sodbuster just responded to the entry you subscribed to at:
Stand Firm

You won’t be asked, you’ll be told. If you choose to blaspheme Christ, by
taking your body, an Image of Him, and uniting it with another male, instead
of an image of the Church, what sort of reception do you expect from the One
Whom you so revile by your very deeds.

RESPONSE:  I guess you have been there and know what God is going to do?  We all walk by faith and not by sight.  And please provide me a quotation from any of the four Gospels where Jesus supports what you state.

GillianC just responded to the entry you subscribed to at:
Stand Firm

Bruce, I am not learned as you are, nor do I sit in the councils of the
Church, as you do.  I am a Christian woman, sinner as you are, and
struggling with this as we all are.  The points you make are valid, but I
don’t believe that sexuality is at the crux of this situation.  That being
said ( I know, everything before the but is bull, but bear with me), here is
a relative pew-potato’s view.

1) God did a lot of “new” and “different” things with His people
Israel “ set them apart from a lot of the cultural standards, both in Old
Testament times, and New Testament times.

2) God has not shown ME (unless I’m not looking, and I have been) any
examples of partnered homosexual relationships (not even a loving,
monogamous, GOOD relationship) that He has blessed within the Scriptures.  I
have asked other learned people, and have not been at all satisfied with the
answers “ vague hints about Ruth and Naomi, and David and Jonathan is the
closest I’ve gotten.  I don’t seem to be the only one who is unsatisfied
in this respect.

3) If God had indeed intended this type of relationship to be a holy
relationship, set aside for His purpose, don’t you think He would have
told us?  Sometime in the last 5000 or so years?  A clue, perhaps?  There
are many examples of hetero relationships, but.

I can hear the arguments about cultural filters, and the mind of the writers
of the Scripture, but go back to #1 “ LOTS of the things He laid down for
His people were just “way out there” in terms of the culture and the
times.  Don’t you think He could have made Himself understood, if this was
His intention?  I believe He could, can, and will make Himself
understood if that is His intention.  I stand unconvinced that it
is, and I stand by the centuries of experience and reason and most
importantly, the example of God and His relationship with His people in
Scripture.

Thanks for “listening”.

Gillian

RESPONSE:  If we follow your approach, we leave no room for even the possibility that the Holy Spirit, one third of our Trinitarian God, might speak to us and help us look through a different lens at the world around us.  It’s also a bit ludicrous to think that the words we presently read in Scripture are the same as what was first told through the oral tradition and then many years later committed to writing.  We live in a fantasy world if we think that no changes have taken place over the many centuries.  We believe the Scriptures to be the word of God, NOT the words of God.  There is a difference.  As far as what Jesus said, He didn’t say much.  (Adultery is based on the breaking of a contract or covenant and is not a sexual sin, hence, Jesus discussion about committing same in the heart.)  Look at the story of the Centurion who came to Jesus asking that his “slave” be healed, noting he was not worthy for Jesus to come under his roof.  A Centurion would have had little interest in a slave other than property.  The word translated at “slave” has other meanings, among them some that would indicate an intimate relationship with the Centurion.  The bottom line however, is that Scripture is without meaning unless it is kept in the context of both the time of its writing AND the context of the rest of the “story line” from which it comes.

Again, I feel sure this has been a waste of time and key strokes, but so be it.  God has told me to witness and witness I have.

Bruce Garner,
Atlanta

Part 2 of my lost sanity:
Wilkie just responded to the entry you subscribed to at:
Stand Firm

Bruce:

“If you love me (with your heart, mind, soul and strength), follow my
commandments.”

RESPONSE:  “Hear O Israel, the Lord your God is one. You shall worship the Lord your God with all your heart and mind and body and strength.  This is the first commandment and the second is like unto it:  You shall love your neighbor as yourself.  On these two commandments hand ALL the law and the prophets.”  Jesus quoted the above when asked about commandments.  Rabbi Hillel noted that the above was the Torah and all else was commentary.  And as an aside, no one reading this list follows ALL of the commandments and proscriptions in the OT.

sufficiently irreverent just responded to the entry you subscribed to at:
Stand Firm

Bruce Garner said:
What we should be doing is what Jesus taught and what He taught centered
around right relationships…

The right relationship regarding human sexuality and sexual behavior is set
forth in Genesis.  God created humankind male and female.  God joined
together male and female for the primary though not sole purpose of
procreation.  We understand that this union takes place in the marriage of
one man and one woman.  Only within the marriage relationship is sexual
intimacy good or blessed or holy.  Any other type of sexual activity,
whether heterosexual or homosexual, stands in direct opposition to God’s
created order, and is, therefore, both disordered and sinful. 

To insist otherwise is for the creature to tell the Creator what is or what
should be.

RESPONSE:  To be true to such an interpretation, every time a married couple engages in sex it must be for the purpose of procreation.  (We do allow for the companionship part however.)  Taking this literally would mean that people who are sterile or barren should not be married by the church because we know that they cannot fulfill this role. 

Matt Kennedy just responded to the entry you subscribed to at:
Stand Firm

My question is, how do orthodox pastors respond to a rainbow presence on
Easter morning?

Personally, I will follow the Roman Catholic model.

During announcements, I will ask those with rainbow sashes etc to step into
the side room where I will read the Rite 1 preface to the Eucharist and
invite those living in a non-celibate homosexual life-style or relationship
to repent of this sin. If they are ready to do so or at the very least admit
that this is a sin that they want to be rid of, I will invite them to the
rail sans the sash. If not then, being in open, willful and notorious sin,
they will not be given communion.

RESPONSE:  And what about those in the congregation who have no identifiable way to be singled out?  Is it not up to the individual to search her/his heart rather than to be identified by others on the basis of some not-always-accurate external marker?  Following this line of thinking, no one could truly come to the table.  But it is that very table that we find forgiveness, restoration, sustenance, strength and the grace we need. 

Aunt B just responded to the entry you subscribed to at:
Stand Firm

Well, this has been a fascinating read. 

I was admonished the other night, by a flea collar,with this: 
It’s not about religion; it’s about people.  I see, it’s not
about faithful discipline; it’s about warm fuzzies.  Got it.  No need for
crucibles.  Not only can a camel get through the eye of the needle, it would
seem fleets of MAC trucks can, as well, as long as they look pretty and the
owners have bought sufficient carbon offsets.

RESPONSE:  Religion and faith are separate entities.  I’ve come close to losing my religion on occasion, but never my faith.  My faith is in God and God’s boundless grace and love.  Religion involves human beings and I learned to not put much faith in them as a general group.  They are too busy arguing over angels dancing on the head of a pin to deal with the woes of the world to which Jesus directed their attention.

Katherine just responded to the entry you subscribed to at:
Stand Firm

I thank Fr. Kennedy for posting the correct clergy response to this event,
if it happens in your parish.  But there may be people wearing the sashes
who are not themselves involved in this sin, but are advocates for the sin. 
They also should not be given communion, since their teaching contradicts
the teaching of the church.  I think perhaps their sin might be worse,
because they have not themselves struggled with the great sorrow of being
“different,” of not naturally wanting what God wants, and yet they set
those who do face this struggle on the wrong path. We’re all sinners, but
lots of us don’t struggle with issues of this magnitude.  Instead, we make
spiritual messes of ourselves by committing, over and over, less noticeable
sins which are just as bad, or perhaps worse, because we don’t struggle as
hard with them.

I don’t use my surname here because it’s my husband’s, it’s unusual, he
is well-known in his line of work, and my opinions are mine, not his.  Also,
I am living with said husband in India, not far from where the young
Christians were beaten in the article Greg cites.  I’d rather not be
identified since I am very visible.  My Christian pastor here tells me that
he is at risk when he preaches to non-Christians.  Beatings and worse are
not uncommon.  The behavior of Americans as it is seen in movies, on TV, and
in the newspapers, is not at all helpful to the reputation of Christians
here or to their ministry.  When the Anglican church is identified in the
news as a pro-gay organization, which Hindus and Muslims alike consider
degraded, this makes my pastor’s position even more difficult.

RESPONSE:  The one who is without sin should cast the first stone.  Judge not that you be not judged for the measure with which you judge is the measure by which you will be judged…at least according to Jesus.  We all struggle together to discern the will of God through the Holy Spirit.  None of us has all the answers, but with grace we can strive together to find them.

Again, I feel sure this has been a waste of time and key strokes, but so be it.  God has told me to witness and witness I have.

Bruce Garner,
Atlanta

Tom,
I look out my window at the Georgia Dome from the 22nd floor of our tower.  I will be away from the 30,000 folks who will be populating the area this weekend.  I hope your team wins.

Bruce

Tom Dupree, Jr. just responded to the entry you subscribed to at:
Stand Firm

The title of the entry is:
Tears of the Clowns

You can see the comment at the following URL:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/2509/

Bruce:

I may not agree with you, but I admire the hell out of you for coming into a
deal like this and being heard.  YOU da man!  I have always felt like in
ECUSA we don’t really talk, although that is changing.  Keep coming back! 

Now to serious business.  You are in the heart of “Cat"lanta Georgia where
my UK Wildcats are going to sweep to the finals of the SEC tournament this
weekend.  So if you’re looking for a little basketball action Kentucky
style, head down to the Ga. dome.  As teams lose, there’ll be a lot of tix
floating around.

Wish I could be there!  And good luck with the GBLT agenda, but it is
doomed.

Keep posting!

Tom

Matt +,

I commend you for your loving and pastoral response to our foolish brothers and sisters.

Dear Mr.Garner: It seems we are getting further and further from what this is really about.

This is about about a blatant and cynical attempt by the Integrity/LBGT gang to hijack and politicise the glorious celebration of Easter.

.

Why not just spare us this divisive and ill-advised “rainbow” crapola and let us celebrate Easter in peace?

the SBBJ snarkster

OK W.G., WHY should Greg have not posted this? It is a blatant attempt to hijack Easter services for obviously divisive purposes. I don’t go to church, particularly on Easter Sunday, to watch political protests and gay pride parades.

And there would have been nothing wrong with making that point, just as you have made it, Snarkster. In fact I’d be inclined to agree. What bothered me about the post is its tone. These/We are not “clowns”, but people. The tears people on both sides of this debate shed, or the sorrow we (on both sides) feel because we (on both sides) feel excluded from “our” church, are real tears, not circus paint. The snigger here at “other items of clothing and accessories”, the reference to a “pity party”, the whole description of the call by LBGT people for equal acceptance as a “joke that has ceased to be funny”, particularly with the implication of effeminacy in “fey” ... those are the reasons why this should not have been posted, IMHO.

Think about your reaction to similar posts on liberal sites which treat conservative concerns as a “joke”. Suppose you read on some liberal site the following outrageous statement: “The conservative pretense that anyone else, let alone God, cares about what people do in their bedroom is a sick joke that has ceased to be funny. Enough of the pity party! So what if your kids have to be confirmed by a queer bishop? There are people out there actually suffering and dying for their faith, real martyrs, and you complain because you have to share your Anglican liturgy with a bunch of queens! Stop sulking in your closets and start concentrating on what matters.”

I think, to make it clear, that this would be a totally unfair statement to make. It would be totally unfair because it would utterly belittle your legitimate concern that TEC should be a church as (you conceive) God intended a church to be, and misrepresent the motives or concerns out of which you act.

Concern that God’s church is not as God intended it is a reason for sorrow, sometimes for anger, sometimes for action. Nor is it inconsistent with simultaneously being concerned about other issues, recognising them as more serious. So the charge “Why don’t you conservatives stop worrying about sex and start worrying about poverty?” (often heard, of course) is not a fair jibe because, hey, you can do both. Same thing the other way.

(I know “liberal” blogs and sites are guilty of doing all this the other way round. And it is no better when they/we do it.)

Now as someone else pointed out, this is not my site. I’m a visitor here, and it’s not for me to tell anyone what to say or how to say it. But, since my hosts have invited me to comment, I think I can say this—and I think you all know it from reading similarly snide posts on “liberal” blogs—when I read this yesterday I thought “Ugh! That’s a nasty dig at us.” These things happen. We all get tone wrong sometimes. I’m sure it wasn’t deliberate; it was meant to be lighthearted; it doesn’t read that way to this gay man.

Bruce

Sodbuster just responded to the entry you subscribed to at:
Stand Firm
You won’t be asked, you’ll be told. If you choose to blaspheme Christ, by
taking your body, an Image of Him, and uniting it with another male, instead
of an image of the Church, what sort of reception do you expect from the One
Whom you so revile by your very deeds.
RESPONSE:  I guess you have been there and know what God is going to do?  We all walk by faith and not by sight.  And please provide me a quotation from any of the four Gospels where Jesus supports what you state.

This is just the standard cop-out. As far as the words of Jesus; he upheld the law, the commandments that God gave man through Moses. Mat. 15:17-18, Luke 16:16-17, Luke 24:44, John 7:19, John 7:49

Wilkie just responded to the entry you subscribed to at:
Stand Firm
Bruce:
“If you love me (with your heart, mind, soul and strength), follow my
commandments.”
RESPONSE:  “Hear O Israel, the Lord your God is one. You shall worship the Lord your God with all your heart and mind and body and strength.  This is the first commandment and the second is like unto it:  You shall love your neighbor as yourself.  On these two commandments hand ALL the law and the prophets.” Jesus quoted the above when asked about commandments.  Rabbi Hillel noted that the above was the Torah and all else was commentary.  And as an aside, no one reading this list follows ALL of the commandments and proscriptions in the OT.

Question: Is Rabbi Hillel an orthodox Rabbi? It might not make any difference to most but the theological differences we experience are going on in Judaism as well. The liberal Jews are straying from the historic faith as well.

Reading through both posts I would say this should suffice. I know it won’t make an impression but I, for one, won’t compromise my faith in the written word of God.

More thanks Fr. Matt. I feel that this is the right and proper course in dealing what can only be a concerted attempt to disrupt the service.

You the man snarkster….. 

FWIW - there have been several comments about Jesus’ teachings and how, if we focused on that, then everything would be OK.  Well, Jesus did teach against porneia, properly interpreted as sex - in general - outside of marriage.  Matt. 15:19; Mark 7:21 (consistent with His affirmation of marriage elsewhere).

For those who would characterise the Son of God as being out of touch with modern science well, if that is your approach, then you needn’t even bother to check the citations.

RESPONSE:  (to sufficiently irreverent)  To be true to such an interpretation, every time a married couple engages in sex it must be for the purpose of procreation.  (We do allow for the companionship part however.) Taking this literally would mean that people who are sterile or barren should not be married by the church because we know that they cannot fulfill this role.

Bruce, please re-read my post.  I did not say that procreation was the *only* reason for marriage; I said that it was the *primary* reason.  I agree with you that companionship is a part of marriage, as we pray in the marriage ceremony, “…that each may be to the other a strength in need, a counselor in perplexity, a comfort in sorrow, and a companion in joy.”

One question: Am I pursuing a “Pro-gay” agenda simply by refusing to single out the sins of LGBT people as existing in a class of their own that makes them unworthy to participate in the body of Christ as more than the lowest of supplicants, to be seen, perhaps, but not heard, until they successfully vanquish this one aspect of their sinful nature?

I realize that notions of neutrality have long gone out of fashion with the ascendancy of a mentality in our country that promotes the idea that “you’re either with us or you’re against us”, no matter what the topic may be.  This started in 1994 with the “Angry White Male” vote that brought on the slash-and-burn politics of the Newt Gingrich/Rush Limbaugh crowd that has turned out to be a parcel of raving hypocrites, delusional megalomaniacs, and pathological liars almost to a man.  Today’s quagmire in Iraq is a typical example of what happens when such people take control of things, as is the selling out of the erstwhile middle class to corporate interests.

However, I would suggest that, all this notwithstanding, it might still be possible to judge a person for who they are, and to realize that their sexuality is a tiny little part of this in comparison with the earth-shaking importance of the fact that they are seekers of Christ.  This obsession on the Right with what goes on behind other people’s closed bedroom doors says more about their own brokenness than it does about the people they so love to point fingers at.

“During announcements, I will ask those with rainbow sashes etc to step into the side room where I will read the Rite 1 preface to the Eucharist and invite those living in a non-celibate homosexual life-style or relationship to repent of this sin. If they are ready to do so or at the very least admit that this is a sin that they want to be rid of, I will invite them to the rail sans the sash. If not then, being in open, willful and notorious sin, they will not be given communion.”

This is certainly within your perogative as a priest. Before you consider such a move, however, I suggest you pray very, very deeply; discuss this with your spiritual director, your confessor, and your bishop; explain what you are doing to both the rainbow-wearers and the rest of the congregation so that your actions are totally transparent.

Personally, you can certainly count on me not to darken the doors of your church—rainbow or not. Good luck with your church growth plans.

I look out my window at the Georgia Dome from the 22nd floor of our tower.  I will be away from the 30,000 folks who will be populating the area this weekend.

Bruce, I admire your courage! If everybody else would boycott the SEC men’s basketball tournament those bigots would be forced to change their ways.  Separate is not equal!  The SEC needs to end its discriminatory practice of conducting separate tournaments for men’s and women’s basketball teams.  In addition, the SEC allows its member schools to maintain separate teams! This must stop! The world has changed since Dr. James Naismith invented basketball in 1891 at which time women weren’t even allowed to vote!  When was the last time a player’s reproductive organs were mentioned on ESPN or in Sports Illustrated?  Never!  The gender of the players does not matter. Men made the rules for basketball.  People can change them. There are those that would argue that this progress would jeopardize the SEC’s standing within the NCAA.  Just remember that university presidents and athletic directors in other conferences have no authority in the SEC.  The authority to schedule and operate the SEC tournament is completely within the polity of the SEC.  If refusing to tolerate this second-class treatment of a significant segment of our student-athlete population means the SEC will walk apart from the NCAA and other conferences, then so be it.

Sorry to disappoint, but my being away from the Georgia Dome has more to do with the traffic nightmare that will accompany the entire event….and thanks for the levity!  Atlanta is a difficult city to navigate when you live here, so a bunch of folks who aren’t really clear about where they are going will certainly add to the “show” shall we say.

Rabbi Hillel is long dead.  I suspect he was considered “orthodox” but don’t really know.  His wisdom has survived him.

On Easter I will probably have some semblence of a rainbow somewhere on my vestments, then again, it could be the remnants of having gotten too close to acolytes with burning candles! 

The important part is that we will have six glorious services in celebration of our Risen Saviour.  I will be “managing” three of those services and have assigned the other three to some of my colleagues.  We will baptize adults in the dark of night (despite the change in daylight savings time), renew our own Baptismal Covenants at the other services, worship in a nave and chapel where anything that wasn’t moving got covered with glorious flowers, hear our choirs raising holy music to the heavens and listening to a small orchestra try and keep up with the organ!  And all that is before we even get to those wonderful lessons followed by a truly Holy Spirit-inspired sermon from the rector and then the Pascal Eucharist (with brass and cybals of course).  And then I will have brunch with some dear and long time friends, go home and collapse for an hour and get ready to host those friends for libations on the deck!  I wish all of you the same beauty and wonder.

A protest?  Hardly!  But a celebration of the wonder and awe of God’s mysterious incarnation and all that went along with it leading up to the crucifixion and resurrection.  We are Easter People and we need never forget that.  God is good…...all the time!

Bruce Garner,
Atlanta

Oops, that should have been cymbals, not cybals!  Fingers moving too fast!

Bruce

Bruce:

You’ve got to stop inciting this stuff!  Everybody is trying to talk at once!

Ok, Mr. Garner: Maybe I didn’t make my question clear or maybe it wasn’t strictly in the form of a question. Maybe you just don’t want to answer it. Whatever, you sidestepped it nicely so I am asking again, as clearly as I know how:
Is the great and glorious celebration of Easter a proper venue for a blatantly political protest?

the SBBJ snarkster

The answer, Snarky, is a resounding YES. Of course it’s political, just like marching on the Whitehouse.

Oooops!!!!!!

I meant NO it’s not the proper venue. YES… it’s political…

Been sittin at the computer too long….......Time for a break… 

Snarkster,  you are wasting your time.  At the church Bruce attends any time or place, is a proper venue for a blatently political protest.  I am sure that Mr. Hoare (the rector at All Saints) will even make a tie between Jesus on the cross and and the Primate’s declaration on Good Friday. 

R S Bunker

Mr. Bunker: That’s fine. As far as I am concerned, “no answer” is itself an answer.

Geez Marlin, don’t scare me like that. I thought you had been abducted and replaced with an “evil twin” Marlin.

the SBBJ snarkster

I did too when I looked at what I’d posted.

I wish I could respond to all the posters who have addressed me directly, but let me make a few statements here in the hopes they’ll suffice as replies:

My point in posting this is that someone needs to point out how ridiculous it is for gay and lesbian Episcopalians to be constantly whining about how tough they have it - how they’re the grass being trampled on, the ones who are paying the price, ad nauseum. Just to give a couple of more egregious examples, they have compared themselves to African slaves, and to Jewish Holocaust victims.

The whole notion that gays and lesbians in the Episcoipal Church are remotely put upon is preposterous. Gays and lesbians as a class are more highly educated, better-paid, and in general enjoy a higher standard of living than the average American, and gay and lesbian Episcopalians even more so.

I understand that some people I count as allies would rather I hadn’t posted this, but from time to time gays and lesbians in this debate need to be reminded that they’re being thoruoghly and deeply silly when they try to play the victim just because there are pople who don’t wish to upend 2,000 years of tecahing on Christian sexual morality, and bless their sinful activity. They need to be reminded that they’re not the only ones who have problems, they’re not the only ones who aren’t getting what they want, and they’re not the only ones in this debate who are having abuse heaped on them because of their beliefs. Cruise by the comments sections at Jake’s and Kaeton’s and you’ll see what I mean.

Also, they’re wrong when they say we’re not listening, they’re wrong when they say we don’t understand, they’re wrong when they say we’re unloving, and they’re wrong when they say that if only we knew some gays we’d have a different opinion.

On the MDG’s: There is nothing wrong, in and of themselves,with the MDG’s, although I will say that as Christin charity goes, they’re not particularly ambitious. And OBVIOUSLY attempting to improve the lives of those less fortunate than ourselves is what Jesus wants us to do. The problem with the MDG’s in the context of the Episcopal Church is that they have become the New Gospel, effectively replacing the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Episcopal Church, it can be fairly said, now exists to propagate a set of relief efforts as its most sacred and compelling message, not to propagate the Good News of Jesus Christ to a broken and hungry world.

But back to the gay and lesbian whine-fest; This is what happens when you so thoroughly feminize and sissify every damn thing you can get your hands on, up to and including Christ’s death on the cross. You end up with a “faith” with all its muscles ripped out, where, evidently, a perfectly good use of one’s time is to sit around and moan and whine like schoolgirls about how unfair life is.

OK Greg, one more time, from the top with feeling.

the SBBJ snarkster

RE: “This is what happens when you so thoroughly feminize and sissify every damn thing you can get your hands on, up to and including Christ’s death on the cross. You end up with a “faith” with all its muscles ripped out, where, evidently, a perfectly good use of one’s time is to sit around and moan and whine like schoolgirls about how unfair life is.”

Heh.

I wish to say that, as a woman, I am deeply offended. 

Honorable women do not sit around and moan and whine.  We go out and run trails and practice our tennis serves when we recall how unfair life is.

; > )

RESPONSE:  The one who is without sin should cast the first stone.  Judge not that you be not judged for the measure with which you judge is the measure by which you will be judged…at least according to Jesus.  We all struggle together to discern the will of God through the Holy Spirit.  None of us has all the answers, but with grace we can strive together to find them.

Well, that’s a start, you think there is something called sin. I do think you gave a gave Matthew 7:1-2 out of full context and breath of Scripture, as we are commanded to judge in Matthew 12:33-37 or 1 Cor 5 or 1 Cor 6:5, less I raise issue of you cut-n-paste Scripture, please read all in context, also Matt 7:6 is in the same discourse and judge not less you be judge.

However you wrote that in reply to this:

Also, I am living with said husband in India, not far from where the young Christians were beaten in the article Greg cites.  I’d rather not be identified since I am very visible.  My Christian pastor here tells me that he is at risk when he preaches to non-Christians.  Beatings and worse are not uncommon

Okay, first that doesn’t even make sense. A Christian pastor is persecuted and you reply “judge not less you be judge?” I really think you are not pondering your responses and just saying the first thing that comes into you mind. I do see how those two items even remotely go together!

However, you just showed Greg’s point that GBLT community really does not know persecution in the American context. There is real issues going on in this world. My friend is Sudan looking for a pastor who disappeared. I’ve assisted a refugee family from Pakistan who left after their Islamic neighbor broke into their home destroying the place and threatening the whole family, they arrived with four suitcases to form a new life.

You reply is disingenuous to real persecution. Your chip on the shoulder is blocking your view of others need, those who might just be in a little more danger than you. In fact any exaggeration can lead to people becoming desensitized to serious human rights violation where people’s lives are at stake.

I do see how those two items even remotely go together!

I do Not see how those two items even remotely go together!

“This obsession on the Right with what goes on behind other people’s closed bedroom doors says more about their own brokenness than it does about the people they so love to point fingers at. “

So answer me this: what does publicly proclaiming one’s status as gay or lesbian do other than shout to the world what you do behind your bedroom doors? I’m just not interested, thanks.

For what it’s worth, I have absolutely no “gaydar”. For me to know if someone is gay or lesbian they have to tell me. And several of my good friends and family members have done just that. Can I bless or ask God to bless that particular sin? Just as much as I can ask him to bless my sins. Do I care for the health and welfare of these friends? Absolutely. I pray for them and ask them to pray for me. I care even more because I’ve had to attend far too many funerals for gay men who died before their time.

One of the reasons that my gay friends participate in politics as much as they do is that they care deeply about their communities and they have time to do something about it. I think it is wonderful that they bring some of that gift of time not spent raising a family in making this world a better place. We are all of us sinners who bring both gifts of the Spirit and the darkness of the Fall with us everywhere we go. To deny that our gay friends have gifts from the Spirit is wrong. But asking the Church to bless that which God does not bless is to deny the darkness of the Fall.

Using the occasion of the Eucharist at any time for mere politics is reprehensible. If I had been at the Primatial Eucharists in Tanzania, I would not have been able to take Communion because I, in my own person, would not have been in love and charity with my neighbours. Many may have regarded that as a political act: for me it would have been respect for the Eucharist.

When I was young I would often complain about things being unfair, to which my father would respond “The CNE is (in Toronto) at the end of August. That’s the only fair I know.” The only just judge is our Lord and Saviour and he’s given us guidelines on how to live. Many of His rules seem unfair but, with His grace, support and unfailing love, they are bearable.

The location of homosexuals in THE DIVINE COMEDY should give many here food for thought.  They are in all three locations: Hell, Purgatory, and Heaven.  There is quite a bit to think about there for anyone willing to think.  One also notes they are there for sins other than simply choosing homosexual expression rather as many heterosexuals are in those same locations for sins other than heterosexual expression.

Just a note of warning to all sexuals.

And this is a blatant political action under the guise of solidarity to generate ersatz sympathy for the allegedly discriminated against whose insistence on their “identity” exceeds all else.  This type of sin gets punished as fraud in Hell and Purgatory.  WE are made to be whole persons, but some of us apparently have only one aspect of our lives in which to be.  And that must be accepted by everone else and praised to the highest so we can feel better about it.  Ain’t gonna happen because the commandments do address sexuality and its expressions as does Jesus.  Bruce, try a little Bible reading and exegesis instead of that eisegesis you prefer.

Dear Bill in Ottawa,
You said:

So answer me this: what does publicly proclaiming one’s status as gay or lesbian do other than shout to the world what you do behind your bedroom doors? I’m just not interested, thanks.

Well, what I want to know is how is it that all the wedding ceremonies, photographed and chronicled in wedding albums, the wedding showers and engagement parties, to say nothing of those ostentatious wedding rings is not flaunting your own sexuality?  When I see a big white limo and lots of flowers at the church, I know for sure that it’s not a couple of homos who are getting hitched. 

I don’t see how wearing a rainbow pin or scarf is any more blatant than the ever-in-my-face wedding ring.

I invite you to consider that you may be as “out” as even me!

Linda McMillan
Austin

Linda: There is much to be said about the excessive “wedding” (meaning ceremony rather than covenant) industry among straights who don’t practice anything resembling biblical marriage.  Point well taken.
But the rings and other public signs represent the total committment that is set forth and blessed by God, as set stated in the scriptures.  The affirmation of marriage and the prohibition of adultery (so well expressed in the NT instruction to “keep the marriage bed undefiled”) should be affirmed publicly - the scripture and the BCP call on the community to honor marriage…thus setting it “in our faces.”

Austin Linda,
Glad to see you are back – you make these blogs more interesting.

Yesterday I paraphrased BP Shaw by saying – Gays “live at the margins of society—like the leper, the poor and the outcasts. Jesus always taught that those at the margins should be brought to the center. “
Then you said to me – “…from now on, I won’t paint so broadly and I hope you all won’t either. … I hope I don’t make assumptions about you based on some unfounded (or even founded!) bias I have.”

You never responded but as you can see, BP Shaw was painting with the broad brush – not I. Statistically it is true that the gay community earns more, has more education and travels more than the average American. But if the broad brush is wrong, the good bishop’s point and his only explanation for his vote, was also wrong.

I have tried to think of ways his broad brush might be correct but if the group earns more, is promoted more, is educated more – it isn’t likely due to being at the margins like the poor or the leper. His unfortunate use of language almost carries a moral connotation. How ironic is that?

Jimbo

Bruce Garnder: 

Blockquotes seem to be on the fritz so I’ll simply refer you back to your posts. 

It seems to me that your commentary suffers greatly from the use of the word “We.”  It is only recent innovations in ECUSA that allow for such interpretations as you use and an overwhelming majority of Christians would be insulted to be included in your We.  I am one of them.  You may not believe that God has the ability to ensure that a book contains what He wants it to contain, but I do.  It always amazes me that people state they believe God created the world and His son can save us from our sins but He wasn’t able to make sure that such an important book would be properly written.
Your interpretation of why adultery is wrong is another example of the great chasm between the two sides.  I would defer to Genesis 2:24. 

Are you really going to drag out this tired accusation about the centurion?  I am always amazed at people who intimate that the slave is a code word for a homosexual partner.  Is it that hard to believe that a man who would serve his country is also man enough to care about the well being of another human being?  Under this theory one could also assume that those who work so diligently for the MDG are doing so to ensure the health of those they would use for sexual needs.  Ludicrous?  I agree.

And to be perfectly clear and blunt, Stand Firm is a place where one can find joy of the Lord, affirmation of His grace and salvation, laughter and tears.  Speaking for me personally, I have no problem with you believing whatever you want to believe.  I DO have a BIG problem with you or any other distorting the belief system that has held Scripture to be the foundation of our church for thousands of years.  You are welcome in any church I attend.  I hope should you visit that I am the vestry person on duty.  It would be my pleasure to welcome you to share in hearing the Gospel message - the same one that is delivered to me.  As to loving you as myself, absolutely.  One of my prayers is that God convict me of my sins.  I would pray no less for you.

Linda
You said

You people don’t even know me.  You have no idea who am.

You are right.  I do not know you personally.  I know you only as a beloved child of God.  I do not believe that sexuality should define any person anymore than age or weight.  Because you are loved as Christ commanded, this is the very reason why many conservatives have taken this stand believing it to be a matter of fulfilling Jesus’ commands to love one another, spread the Gospel and also not to cause another to stumble.

Greetings to all StandFirmers.  If you will indulge me, I’ll just reply to everyone.  I assume the block quote thing is still not working so I won’t use that function.

First Timothy Fountian:

Thanks for writing Timothy.  I am happy to see a spirit of dialogue emerging. 

You said that <i>“…the rings and other public signs represent the total commitment that is set forth and blessed by God, as stated in the scriptures.”  </i>

I know that God blesses people, and often blesses them in relationship.  But what I don’t really see is a blanket blessing of the institution of marriage.  I just don’t think it’s there.

What I do see pretty clearly is that Jesus says that marriage is for the children of the world and Paul admonishes that if we re not married we should stay that way.  Of course, “for the sake of immorality” he has given instructions for those who will marry.  But the standard is singleness and celibacy.  That seems clear to me.

Now for JHGraves “Jimbo” 

What I am saying, Jimbo, is that the individuals in a group often bear no resemblance to the stereotype, even if the stereotype is based on demographic data.  I am not rich, for example.  I have a micro-business which does OK but I work hard and don’t have a lot ot time or maney.  I only have a bachelor’s degree which is more than some but not all that much.  I had to work for that too.  I can’t dance like Ellen, I am not as likeable as +Gene, and I am not as glamorous as… well, I don’t really know of any glamorous lesbians.  But then I am not as up on the pop culture as some of the rest of you either.  That’s my lesbian reality.

Data on groups can tell us things about groups, it doesn’t give us much information about individuals though. 

For example, demographically senior citizens are the richest people in the US.  Based on that, though, I wouldn’t want to cut senior citizen discounts at the pharmacy, or down at the International House of Pancakes for that matter.  There are senior citizens—a lot of them from the looks of the IHoP parking lot—who need those discounts. 

On the other end of the spectrum we have the children, the poorest people in the US.  But, I don’t assume that all children are poor any more than I assume that all seniors are rich.  Sure, I’ve got the demographic data to back up such an assumption.  But, on the ground, it doesn’t work.  In fact, it is presumptuous.  My biases—founded or not—keep me from meeting people as individuals and learning about them as unique Children of God.

Individual people—not groups— are at the margins of society and the church.  Some of them are gay, some of them are straight, some rich, some poor, lots of them are just lost and hurting.  I think we can do a better job of welcoming them when we meet them as real people, seek and serve Christ in them, and love them, no matter how different they are,  as if they were members of our own affinity group. 

If we can’t respond to God in the other who is human and mortal like us, how ever will we behave when we get to Heaven?

Thanks for writing Jimbo.

To Jackie Bruchi

I know you addressed this to Bruce but I am going to jump in.  You said: 

“Are you really going to drag out this tired accusation about the centurion?”

Well, Jackie I do not believe it was an accusation, merely a statement.  Only a person with prejudices would “accuse” one of being a homosexual as if it were a crime.  Words mean something, and you’ve said a lot in this sentence.

Then you said:

“I am always amazed at people who intimate that the slave is a code word for a homosexual partner.”

Why ascribe such nefarious motives?  There is nothing coded about it, after all.  The inerrantists who believe only in the autographical text should appreciate the difference between pais and dulos in the good old Aland, Black, et al.  which is surly closer to the autograph than the KJV. 

My understanding of it is that dulos indicates service, either forced service or quite often the voluntary kind.  Paul, for example calls himself a dulos (servant/slave) of God.  In the first mentions, when the centurian is speaking about his loved servant, he uses this kind of generic term for one who serves. In about verse 5 , when he is speaking directly to Jesus, the centurian is more personal and uses the word pais, a child, an attendant.  It (pais) is also used in other contexts like God helps His servant (pais) Israel.  In Acts Jesus is called a servant (pias).  David is said to be God’s servant (pais).  Things like that. 

The language allows for much more than EITHER slave OR homosexual partner. Neither seems totally correct to me.  But, clearly this person was very important to the centurian and given what we know of the culture and region it is possible that their relationship would have included sex.  Also possible that it did not.  These are merely matters of interpretation.  At best you and Bruce may claim that you have a different understanding.  Neither of you may claim that you are “right” and most certainly you may not claim that the other is “wrong.” 

So you see, there’s nothing coded about it.  Why not let yourself believe the best about people who are only studying the Bible, reading, marking and— like you—inwardly digesting it as best they can?  It might be better to rely more on the actual word, that is Jesus, to do the intreperative work in Bruce, and let Her do her interpretative work in you.  And don’t be too alarmed if it turns out differently in each of you.  I’d be alarmed if it didn’t.

And, last but not least, Jackie
I can’t tell if this is the same Jackie or another one.  In any event, Jackie, you said:

“…this [God’s love for all]  is the very reason why many conservatives have taken this stand believing it to be a matter of fulfilling Jesus’ commands to love one another, spread the Gospel and also not to cause another to stumble.”

Honestly, I am not really feeling the love too much.  But, let’s assume that this really is your motivation.  So far all I’ve gotten from the conservative side is condemnation.  There may be something more there but I don’t know what it is. 

I’ll tell you why that doesn’t sound like love to me.  Jesus didn’t condemn, that is not why he came.  He came to bring life.  He went all around and found people who were on the margins, in sin, possessed by demons, sick and lame, etc… and he brought life to each situation.  He brought the woman at the well from the margin of her society to the very center, he told us not to throw the first stone unless we ourselves were blameless, he cast out the demons, healed the sick and lame. These are life giving and life affirming acts.  They are not condemning.

So, what I want to say to you is this, if you have something to say that is life giving, that will show me a way to know God more deeply and love God more thoroughly, then let’s hear it.

Would you have me go into reparative therapy which has been shown to do such great harm?  Or maybe you would join your voice with that of the president of the Southern Baptists who would like to genetically alter fetuses to ensure that they won’t turn out to be gay.  (Same guy who is against stem cell research, btw.) What exactly would you have me do?  Not take communion?  Maybe you’d be happy for me to just lie and say I’m sorry for what I am.  That’s what it would be, a lie.  But sometimes I think that would make some people happy.  What is it you recommend for me?  And, how will that honor our Lord? 

I do keep a big rock on my desk just in case any of you literal readers of the Bible ever care to act on your faith.  I remain ready, at a moment’s notice, to give my life for my Lord.  Should it bring even a glimmer of glory to my savior you may stone me with my own rock.  Or, you may bring your own.

So, either show me the love, give me your life affirming solution,  or admit that all you’ve been serving up is condemnation.

Havdala tov to all,
and a blessed Feast of the Resurrection tomorrow,

Linda McMillan
Austin

Piedy,

You wrote (in part), ” I don’t feel as though I should complain when Greg, Matt, Jackie, Sarah, et al make an editorial decision with which I disagree.  I wish others would extend that courtesy as well.” 

Dud(ette?), this is a blog.  Complaining and criticizing is what we do around here.  We’re all (including me of course) possessed with the bizarre notion that what we say is important and others should listen to what we say.  My brother in Christ Greg is perfectly capable of discerning whose voices he should listen to and whose voices he should politely ignore.  Of course, much of the purpose of what I wrote was not to change Greg’s mind, but to alert some of our worthy opponents that not all of us here agree with some of the decisions of our editorial board. 

Now this might be casting pearls before the swine here, but one of the most important things I’ve learned from my “listening process” with our worthy opponents is this—it is far less important to them WHAT you say but it is far more important to them HOW you say it.  Greg’s point might have merit (heck, I even agree with it), but it got completely lost in his less than charitable word choices.  But that is Greg’s way.  Heck, he probably really liked “Wild at Heart.” Oh cr#p, did I just put that in writing? Now I’m really in for it.  300 anyone?

Linda,
First the issue of the centurion - words do, in fact, have meaning. It seems odd that Jesus who did not ignore the improper sexual relationships of the woman at the well would have ignored an improper relationship of the Centurion.  While, thank God, I have never been in a slave/master relationship, I have no problem believing that many felt great affection for those who served them.  As a matter of fact, it is those who did not that I struggle to figure out.  The word pais has many meanings including slave and son.  Duolos has one meaning - slave.  One must make assumptions that have no logical basis to assume there was a relationship that went into a sexual relationship.  I’ll give you I probably should not have used the word coded as there are other words that would have been more descriptive.
As to not feeling the love - let me assure you that you can keep your rock.  Neither you nor any other is in danger of phsical violence from me or any other reasserter I know, although more than once reappraisers have given me pause in that area.  I regret you do not believe I can love someone - as Christ commanded me to - because I disagree with their lifestyle.  Thank the good Lord there are many in my life who have very successfully loved me even when I was in open rebellion against God.  Not once did they do this by affirming my actions - as a matter of fact, I knew they loved me in spite of my actions.  I pray the good Lord will give me that ability also as I have many friends who are in relationships I find outside the boundaries of God’s plan for us.  Anything, no matter what it is, that separates us from the love of God is to be avoided.

I disagree with the homosexual agenda in interpretating the Bible.  Those presenting this alternate view have yet to provide a sound Biblical basis for their belief system.  Of course, it is their right not to have to do so.  Anyone can believe anything they want BUT when that belief system seeks to alter the very foundation of the Church, that changes everything. 

Again, I’ll welcome you or Bruce or anyone else to come to church.  It is a place where all are welcome but again the message to all is the same. 

I guess the difference here is that I do not believe that God is “doing a new thing.”  I believe, in fact, that Scripture gives strong warnings that accepting such things are wrong - seriously wrong and if I become a party to that, I become a stumbling block.  If you require the Church to change its stance on homosexual activity before you can feel the love, well - I’m sorry you feel that way.
I don’t require that you change your belief system in order to offer you my hand as a sister in Christ.

Widening Gyre,

As one of those opponents (worthy or not!), can I say that I appreciate your concern about tone. We are sensitive to tone; maybe some will say too sensitive ... but if the point can be made kindly, why not?

I’m afraid I can’t feel too kind myself about Greg’s justification as it emerged:

This is what happens when you so thoroughly feminize and sissify every damn thing you can get your hands on, up to and including Christ’s death on the cross. You end up with a “faith” with all its muscles ripped out, where, evidently, a perfectly good use of one’s time is to sit around and moan and whine like schoolgirls about how unfair life is.

O dear. Where does one start? Why the scare-quotes around “faith”? Why the assumption that faith is a matter of musculature? (Since when was muscle a Christian virtue? How exactly does Christ’s death on the cross—his gloriously shameful submission to victorious humiliation—exemplify that alleged virtue?) Why the assumption that gays “feminize” and “sissify”? Don’t women also feminize? (And what’s wrong with that, if they do? Is masculinity now also a Christian virtue?)

And anyway, what has this got to do with the proposed action? How is engaging in a political protest in Church “sissy”? It may be all sorts of things (inappropriate, uncharitable, counterproductive) but hardly sissy.

A complaint about gay people “whining”, “feminizing”, and “sissifying” a hitherto muscular institution? What’s that all about? What we (gay people) hear is “Get back in your closets you limp-wristed queens and let the REAL men run things”. Feel the love? It’s hard to suppose we are meant to.

Dear Mr.Stanley:

How is engaging in a political protest in Church “sissy”? It may be all sorts of things (inappropriate, uncharitable, counterproductive) but hardly sissy.

Sissy may be arguable but “inappropriate, uncharitable, counterproductive” are certainly not. These types of blatantly political protests are not appropriate for church any time but most especially not at Easter.

Come to church, if you wish, as often as possible. You are welcome as are all sinners. But leave your damn rainbow crap at home.

the snarkster

What Greg posted on 03-09-2007 at 02:38 PM is right on the money.

A bit of reality is painful to the ears of those living under a thick layer of delusion.

Paul,
I may regret this - but here goes. 
Here’s what I saw in Greg’s post - a total frustration that the glbt lobby has made the altar of Christ a stage for political action.  Now before you jump me for crossing against the light - may I explain?
I don’t know how you feel about labels but it is difficult to have this discussion without them.  Therefore please allow me the use of Kendall Harmon’s suggested reasserter - revisionist tags.  I promise in advance they are not meant to be demeaning but descriptive only.
Those in the reasserter camp did our best to sit back and listen - for years.  When things started progressing so far past the boundaries, we started to demur.  As soon as that happened we were smacked down with the three uns -  unloving, unlistening and uncaring.  When we asked for theology, we were given experience.  Many of us sat back down thinking (because we were reminded by our priests) that what happened in some place “up north” or “down south” or “out west/east” (you get my drift) was no concern of ours and good heavens it should not affect the good work we were doing for Christ in our parishes.  We sat back down.  Pretty soon, people started to leave rather than face the acrimony (and yes that is what it was) that was shoved our way when one of us stood up and voiced a concern.  We were called everything from homophobes to (here’s my personal favorite) misognysts.  When we went to our Days of Sacred Listening (yes I attended) we were often told that Scripture was outdated or cruel or - another personal favorite - the writers didn’t know what we know now.  We were told that we had elevated Scripture to the level of idol.  So we had choices to make - personal lines in the sand to be drawn. 

Now that may dishearten you who are on the other side of this debate.  But I would pray you are heartened by it.  You see we do not carry these banners and guard our little stone bridges for fame or fortune, despite those who believe otherwise.  We do it because we feel called of God to be here.  And until such time as clear Scriptural authority is shown otherwise, we will stand in the breach.  We will tell you whenever you will listen that we love you but cannot affirm your lifestyle.  We will beg those who would bring this battle through the doors of the church - to please refrain.  Show us where we are theologically wrong first.  The revisionist theology so far is woefully weak, relies heavily on experience and desire and only stands if one is willing to discount the Bible as The Word of God.  I cannot do so - as hard as some of the sayings in that Book, I have found them to be true. 
I am an Anglican because I love the worship, value the communion around the world and believe I have been called to be here at this time and this place.  You may be assured that the majority of reasserters I know pray constantly for an open and discerning heart - I know I do.

Jackie:

You may be assured that the majority of reasserters I know pray constantly for an open and discerning heart - I know I do.

Your whole post was outstanding and your words are true for me as well.  The quote above struck a particular chord.

It has gotten increasingly difficult for me to have an open heart.  For the LGBT who say reasserters don’t understand the experience of being marginalized and persecuted - I beg to differ.  We are marginalized in our own Church.  We cannot elect and consecrate an orthodox bishop any more; we cannot conscientiously adhere to our theological tradition and beliefs without institutional oppression - instead our leaders are deposed, sued and denied consent; we cannot defend the faith without being struck down and mocked.  Our “experience” is not subject to any “listening process” or “discernment.”

It is hard to have an open heart - it is hard to love my opponent and forgive him.  But I do struggle to do just that and I every day I beg God to help me.

Snarkster, As it happens I agree with you (!?!). I do think that this sort of protest is the wrong thing in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Jackie, There is no reason to regret anything you have written! I do understand (I hope) how you feel, even if on various points I disagree with the substance of what you have said. I think there is a place for both of us to stand loving each other while strongly disagreeing with each other’s choices in matters of lifestyle and doctrine. And I stand resolutely against those who sling insults at those of you who find yourself taking a stand on a point which, odd as it seems to others, is one where you feel a line must be drawn.

I’m not going to try to persuade you here that the theology you are being offered is better than you reckon it to be, and that the theology you are offering is not as good as you think it to be. That’s the whole debate of course. The fault-lines run very deep. But if this is to be an honest debate, a possible debate, it has to be conducted on certain founding assumptions. For my part, I think, one of those assumptions has to be that one avoids precisely those charges which rest on a stereotyped view of the sort of people our opponents are, the good faith with which they hold their opinions and the personal importance they attach to them.

Both sides fall short on this sometimes. My side (the “reappraisers”) fall short when we describe you in terms which state or imply that you believe what you do because you are conservative, mean-spirited, bigoted, homophobic, voyeuristic or misogynistic. Your side (the “reasserters”) fall short when you describe us as “clowns”, “sissy”, effeminate or godless. (Of course it is an embarrassment to both sides that there are one or two people, often rather vocal, for whom these descriptions might be accurate; but they are a small minority, and best ignored.)

Mostly I think (on both sides) that we fall into this trap largely through sheer frustration. One silly move (in this case a grandiose plan to wear rainbows in order to emphasize division over one issue at the solemn festival when we gather together to recall Christ’s supreme sacrifice made once for all upon the cross) begets a response which is fair in terms of its substance but, as it seemed to me, unhappy in terms of its phrasing. And so it could easily go on—for you must surely see how a reappraising blog could pick this post up and hold it up to ridicule.

All I am saying is that while I understand and even agree with much of the substance behind Greg’s post—which I am certain, btw, was made in perfect good faith—I found its phrasing hurtful and unfortunate. No big deal. These things happen. But they don’t help.

This-day:

I agree that Jackie’s post is excellent. I was posting my response while you were writing. I add this simply to say that I share your concern that we who believe the church should go in a way which undoubtedly represents a break with tradition as many had understood it have been far too ready to treat reasserters with little charity. Even if you are wrong—as I think you are—the properly charitable response (on both sides) is to find a way for each party to worship as it thinks right.

Paul Stanley:
I appreciate your gracious and thoughtful comments.  Certainly it is possible to disagree to the very core - and still be respectful and dignified.

this-day:

Paul Stanley:
I appreciate your gracious and thoughtful comments.  Certainly it is possible to disagree to the very core - and still be respectful and dignified.

I join you in finding Paul gracious and thoughtful. And I suspect that we could agree that rainbow gear on Easter morning would be neither respectful nor dignified, but perhaps divisive and confrontational. Not such a “happy morning”.

Perhaps a counter demonstration is in order.  Don’t boycott the Rainbow Easter Parade, but write a check for a nice contribution on Easter Sunday to the Network and/or the AAC.  Drop a note in the collection plate telling the parish that you have done so.  Then say a prayer for the church AND for our rainbow-decked friends.

The “rainbow flags and symbols substantiate the fact TEC is apostate. One consequence of that apostasy is the dismissal of the Covenant of Grace. This becomes a dismissal of TEC roots, its great tradition shared with the Christian “faith” once given and known to evolve in its understanding of itself. That understanding is now tossed on an altar of relativistic inclusionism where Schori, et al, invokes Christ’s Holy Spirit in the name of a lie thereby dismissing the Covenant of Grace.

It is a fitting to quote the great Christian historian,  Philip Schraff,  given this consideration of the Covenant of Grace:
“The subjective principle of Protestantism is the doctrine of justification and salvation by faith in Christ (the Covenant of Grace); as distinct from the doctrine of justification by faith and works or salvation by grace and human merit.  Luther’s formula is sola fide (by faith alone). Calvin goes further back to God’s eternal election, as the ultimate ground of salvation and comfort in life and death.  But Luther and Calvin meant substantially the same thing,  and agree in the more general proposition of salvation by free grace through living faith in Christ (Acts 4:12),  in opposition to any Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian compromise which divides the work and merit between God and mankind.  And this is the very soul of evangelical Protestantism.”
The Anglican father’s followed this theological framework!
It is a shame that we cannot enter again this great debate as framed by the father’s of the Anglican movement, that we must now entertain ourselves with the issue of sexuality so that the homosexuals of TEC (gay, lesbian and bisexual) may construe that Scripture’s teaching have been misconstrued over the millenniums, including the fact sin isn’t sin, that God has forsaken that teaching. No wonder TEC is apostate.

This controversy over the rainbow symbol might be amusing if it didn’t highlight a more serious issue for us.  We are ever so much more inclined to focus on the outside, on what someone is wearing, on some visible factor than we are to make an effort to focus on the person within.  In our focus on the exterior, on things that might not matter all that much anyway, we miss the opportunity to see the real person inside.  That may be someone who is hurting in ways we can not conceive.  That may be someone who is simply looking for a place to simply be…be themselves…be part of a community.  It may be someone who has found themselves at the altar rail wondering why they are there and wondering if God is really listening or cares and wondering if those who claim to be God’s people care either. 

Most importantly, perhaps, our focus on the externals creates an opportunity for us to miss seeing the face of Christ in those we encounter.  If, on Easter Day, someone approaches the rail wearing a small rainbow ribbon or wearing a fine feathered hat or wearing clothing that has seen better days, where will we focus?  Will we miss the chance to see the face of Christ in another? 

It’s always puzzled me how folks who are part of an oppressed group respond to and treat those in another oppressed group.  There seem to be two possibilities:  They either “get it” and empathize and sympathize with those others, realizing that the struggle is the same regardless of other presenting issues. Or they join in with the power structure and become part of the source of oppression.  The latter situation forces me to also wonder how much of their oppression they have internalized into some degree of self-loathing.

On Sunday our rector’s sermon dealt in part with one of the petitions from the Litany of Penitence.  It was the petition where we repent of our anger at our frustrations.  He suggested we might focus on that as a discipline for the remainder of Lent.  (It was an excellent sermon and should be on the website by now http://www.allsaintsatlanta.org .)

I’m trying to follow his lead and advice.  It’s not easy. 
Frustrations are many.

Bruce Garner,
Executive Council

Bruce,
Just suppose that a group men and women from Adulterers are Us decided to show their support for one another, their lifestyles and to protest any objection the Church may have by wearing a red necktie to church on a particular day - say like Easter when attendance is at its highest for the year.  Now membership in AAU requires both spouses be members to ensure that both parties are onboard.  And let’s suppose they announced this “silent protest” so that everyone would know their positions.  Now I ask you - is this the act of a group seeking to meet God at the rail?  And if you don’t see the similarity in the analogy, you truly don’t “understand” us on this side of the divide at all.
Now that phone call you just got was to notify you that they will be at every service of your church - in masse.

Bruce said:

This controversy over the rainbow symbol might be amusing if it didn’t highlight a more serious issue for us.  We are ever so much more inclined to focus on the outside, on what someone is wearing, on some visible factor than we are to make an effort to focus on the person within.

I think you make our point, Bruce.  All these people in the pews who had faces and individual stories and needs waive that individuality when they put on the “uniform” of the rainbow stuff, and they instead become faceless billboards for The Cause.  Instead of looking a lot like the rest of us and inviting conversation, they throw up a cardboard cutout of An Agenda, and we are left to react to The Agenda, instead of the person.  That Agenda is offensive to our understanding of the Gospel.  It is doubly offensive when that redirection of focus comes at the Eucharist, which should be our supreme focus.

Dear Jackie,

Thank you for your thorough response.

I don’t know why you assume that the woman at the well was engaged in improper sexual relations.  There are several scenarios in which she may have had multiple husbands and not done anything improper.  But, assuming that in fact she had been in multiple inappropriate relationships, isn’t it interesting that Jesus did address her relationships and said nothing about the relationship of the centurian?  Whether the relationship was sexual or not seems not to have concerned Jesus too much.

In my own experience it is rare that we can say that one word is an absolute equivalent of another, especially across languages, culture, and time.  But, I’ll take my own advice and allow the Holy Spirit to do her interpretative work with you as She does with me.

You said:

Neither you nor any other is in danger of phsical violence from me or any other reasserter

But this is not really true.  Homosexuality is illegal in many countries, punishable by death in some including Northern Nigeria where the Anglican Archbishop is campaigning for even greater restrictions on gay men and lesbians.  Here in the US it is estimated that a teenager takes his or her own life every 5 hours because he or she is gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender, and can not deal with the added stresses that society puts upon them. So even though you do not personally want to kill me, which I appreciate btw,  I don’t think you can make the assertion that there is no danger of physical violence nor does my own experience bear that out. 

You also said:

I regret you do not believe I can love someone - as Christ commanded me to - because I disagree with their lifestyle.

Couple of things:

A.I never said that.  What I said is that condemnation is not the way of Jesus and that, so far, that is all I’ve heard from the reasserter side.  When Jesus encountered people he didn’t condemn them, he offered a way for them to enter into new and abundant life.  The reasserters have still not said what it is they propose so that I may enter more fully into the Kingdom of God. 

B.Since you can not possibly know what my lifestyle is like how do you know that you disagree with it?  I am curious about this, and I hope you will reply, just exactly what do you think my lifestyle is all about?

As for altering the very foundation of the Church… It seems to me like that’s been going on for awhile now.  About two thousand years give or take.  The church changes.  It changes all the time.  It’s changing even now as we all consider these issues.  And, it will change again tomorrow.  An organization that doesn’t change is dead. 

I remind you that type of marriage practiced today is a relatively modern innovation.  Change can be good all of us.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.

Linda McMillan
Austin

RE: “I regret you do not believe I can love someone - as Christ commanded me to - because I disagree with their lifestyle.”

It seemed clear to me that Jackie was not saying anything about Linda’s lifestyle personally.  She said “their lifestyle” and I assume the lifestyle that she was referring to at the moment was same-gender sexual relationships in general which Jackie has clearly stated she believes is sinful and violates the clear commands of NT scripture.  Of course, there are numerous other lifestyles that Jackie might also disapprove of in other contexts—for instance the lifestyle of a heterosexual engaging in sexual relations outside of marriage, and anything else that Jesus and the apostles made clear was sinful.

. . . “and the man you now have is not your husband. . . . “

Yes—I would say that Jesus was quite clearly referring to the woman at the well’s immoral sexual relationships.

I remind you that type of marriage practiced today is a relatively modern innovation.

Folks should make a note of this.  It is the latest “scholars say” talking point that reappraisers are bringing to debate.  Seems to be all the rage in seminary - a recent grad argued this on the floor of our dio. convention last year, asserting his authority by saying, “Look, I took a class about this…”
It is a half-truth.  If you look at the customs surrounding marriage (things like espousal, community influence vs. individual choice, and other factors) then, yes, there are changes over time.  Christianity has functioned in settings with various social norms.
But to twist this to say, “Therefore, SSUs might be OK” is to (as ever) misread the plain sense of Scripture.  When speaking of marriage, every biblical reference is to “husbands and wives” (Gen. 2:24-5, repeated in the Gospels and the Epistles, and other verses too numerous to list here).  The prohibition of adultery is emphatic throughout texts composed in very different times and places (Exodus 20:14; Heb. 13:4) .  Marriage was given so high a standing that converts to Christ were advised to stay with pagan spouses (and these were described as “men/husbands and women/wives”) - and this is striking given the loss of other family and community ties the converts were told to expect(I Cor. 7:10ff; Mark 10:2ff in context).  Marriage (“man and wife”) was included in the criteria for selecting ordained leadership I Tim. 3).
Of course, if you point out the dissembling and distortion, the reappraisers will drop the “scholars say” line and go with “Well, who cares, we have a new thing of the Spirit anyway.”

OK, I think it might be time to clear up a few things.  First, I do not have a “lifestyle.”  I do have a life and I would wager it’s probably as boring and mundane as that of most of the folks reading this right now.  I get up at about 4:30am, pray the Daily Office, shave, shower, dress and get to work about 6am.  Most days I leave the office about 2:30pm.  I have had the same employer for 34 years.  When I get home, I generally read the paper, take care of a few household chores, fix something to eat and watch television for a while, making sure I don’t get too comfortable lest I take an impromptu nap!  I check email and then try to get to bed between 9:30 and 10pm.  The routine is a little different on Tuesdays when I go to staff meeting at church.  Saturdays often get used up in handling the chores that are ever-present with keeping up a house.  Sunday I arrive at church about 7am and begin my various duties, usually heading out for brunch with friends about 12:30pm, having served the two main services and overseen the 8am.  If I’m lucky, I have a little bit of free time on Sunday afternoon to read the paper and/or accomplish more around the house.  So if that’s a “lifestyle” I suspect the rest of you have one very similar to mine!

There is clear implication on this list that sexual orientation, at least for lesbians and gays, is a choice that we make.  Well the first fallacy to that thinking is easy:  Why would anyone choose to put up with the junk we endure on lists such as this? 

The greater reality is much different.  I was made from the cloth that God cut.  I didn’t ask to be of my particular sexual orientation, it’s just the way I arrived.  I realized I was gay at about the age of 8.  (And no I do/did not have a domineering mother or a distant father.  Both parents have always been part of my life and very supportive.  I do have Southern parents and some of you know what it’s like to have a Southern momma!  Further, I was never sexually abused as a child or teen.  So please disabuse yourselves of all the stereotypical notions you might have.)  I grew up in a very traditional household.  My parents will have been married for 59 years this coming August.  I grew up attending church and I was a Boy Scout and an Explorer. 

What may be helpful for you to understand is that I am “wired” differently from a heterosexual male.  While I truly appreciate a beautiful woman (and I have dated some FINE looking women in my time!), there is no sexual attraction there.  The feelings simply do not manifest themselves, even in fantasies.  That may be difficult for some of you to grasp, but that is the way it is.  It might be easier to understand if you asked yourselves when you first realized you were attracted to members of the opposite sex.  You might also ask when you first felt sexual feelings as well.  If you are willing to do that, then flip the scenario and realize that is the way I am only with an orientation towards my own gender.

The little comparison using “Adulters are Us” or some such, is way off the mark.  An individual who commits adultery makes a conscious choice to do so.  She or he decides to violate the covenant they have with their spouse.  It’s not a matter of “wiring” since both the object of their adultery and their spouse are opposite their own gender (presumably anyway). 

Certainly, all lesbians and gays could decide not to act on their sexual orientation.  But in my estimation that would be an insult to the One who created us.  It would be much like those born left handed deciding never to use their left hand.  I have a colleague who has scars on her left hand where teachers literally beat her into using only her right hand because of their ignorance and stupidity about left handedness! 

Keep in mind however, that I also think the “rules of engagement” apply equally regardless of sexual orientation.  I use the Baptismal covenant language of respecting the dignity of the other person and seeking and serving Christ in them and loving them as I Iove myself. Abusive and exploitive relationships are wrong and sinful regardless of the sexual orientation of the parties involved.  And they are equally sinful even when they take place under the marriage covenant.

Some have missed the point entirely about looking beyond what you see at the altar rail.  We are all guilty of giving deference (at least mentally anyway) to the one who is well dressed, wearing stylish clothing and shoes and adorned with jewelry over the one who is obviously less materially blessed and looks so.  So I would still posit that when we are looking “for” or “at” something to differentiate folks, we have lost sight of why we and they are there.  I recall a time when People of Color stood silently waiting to be served.  All some saw was “Negro agitators.”  Others saw children of God who were being treated less than human by other children of God.  I also recall a time when women stood silently waiting to answer the call to ordination.  They were labeled “feminist rabble rousers” by some.  Others saw children of God being treated less than human by other children of God.

That’s enough for now.  Besides I am quite certain some of you will rip this apart as fast as you can read it.

A post script to “ RS Bunker:”  Your comments about my rector are less than accurate.  I direct your attention to our website (http://www.allsaintsatlanta.org ) to hear and read exactly what he has said from the pulpit.

Bruce Garner

Hang in there Linda!

Bruce

Certainly, all lesbians and gays could decide not to act on their sexual orientation.  But in my estimation that would be an insult to the One who created us.  It would be much like those born left handed deciding never to use their left hand.  I have a colleague who has scars on her left hand where teachers literally beat her into using only her right hand because of their ignorance and stupidity about left handedness!

Well Jackie, I think you have your answer - it is the latter case:

And if you don’t see the similarity in the analogy, you truly don’t “understand” us on this side of the divide at all.

Greetings Stand Firmers, and thank you for your continued engagement.  I’d like to comment on three things if you’ll indulge me:

Sarah Hey said:

. . . “and the man you now have is not your husband. . . . “
Yes—I would say that Jesus was quite clearly referring to the woman at the well’s immoral sexual relationships.

And that seems like a likely interpretation to me too.  But, it’s not a done deal is it?  The man she is with could be the brother of her husband, if her husband had died. 

I don’t want to get in the habit of viewing scripture through the lens of my own cultural expectations.  I try to be careful about that.

Timothy Fountain said:

<blockquote> But to twist this [that our current understanding of marriage is a fairly modern innovation]  to say, “Therefore, SSUs might be OK” is to (as ever) misread the plain sense of scripture. </blockquote>

I didn’t make that twist, Timothy.  You did.  My point is that as an organization (organism) the church is constantly changing.  It’s a sign of life and it’s good for all of us! 

Further, I do not recall that utilizing a “plain sense” reading of scripture has ever been very well accepted among Anglicans.  We are the ones who don’t leave our brain at the door, remember? 

And even though it wasn’t addressed to me, I want to comment on the red tie wearing adulterers:

Thanks to Bruce Garner for sharing his lifestyle with us.  He is the only person I know who may in fact be more boring than me! 

When I read that post—and I found it off-base in too many ways to enumerate them all so I am not even going to try that—But, I remembered something that a man in my icon class said one day and I think it speaks to this red tie/rainbow/things people do to identify themselves thing:

The class had been discussing some things which seem irrelevant to me, the presence of women behind the iconostasis and other arcania of Orthodoxy, REAL Orthodoxy.  And just before I totally tuned out, Stewart who dosen’t talk much at all raised his head and said, “Well, when I am at church I am too worried about my own sins to think about the sins of anyone else.” 

That seems enormously instructive to me in this current discussion.  I don’t really care what the adulterers are doing.  I have complete confidence in the Holy Spirit to deal with them, and I have confidence in everyone who gathers with me for Holy Communion that they are doing their best to listen and obey.  Given that, I really don’t see that I should be involved in it at all. 

I found my Freedom Ring necklace last night and I got it out and hung it on the door knob.  It’s all ready to go for Easter Day.  Hanging there on the knob it looks so uncontroversial, the anodized rings reflecting the light recalling parades and pot-lucks past.  It is faded and I thought of getting a new one.  But, this one has too many memories.  It just seems to me to be on par with a Salvador Dali painting to think that this faded necklace could generate so much attention.  Makes me think we’re on the right track.

Best,

Linda McMillan
Austin

RE: “And that seems like a likely interpretation to me too.  But, it’s not a done deal is it?  The man she is with could be the brother of her husband, if her husband had died.”

LOL.  You’re more than welcome to decide that Jesus was not manifestly *stating and judging* the woman’s lifestyle, if it helps you feel better. I’m not really interested in attempting to change your mind—we don’t really hold a similar enough foundational worldview for me to try that.

But thankfully, the readers at SF will know what the passage means—and precisely what Jesus was saying.  It’s a clever try, though!

; > )

Remember the woman caught in adultery that the crowd was planning on stoning to death?  Jesus clearly put the responsibility for their sins back on them and left the woman herself as resposible for her sins.  When He told her to go and sin no more, we do NOT know to which sin he was referring.  Many have always presumed it was adultery.  But a clear and plain reading of the passage does not say that.  We may imply it, but the words do not say it. 

Bruce Garner

Bruce gets all postmodern:

... we do NOT know to which sin He was referring.  Many have always presumed it was adultery.  But a clear and plain reading of the passage does not say that.  We may imply [infer?] it, but the words do not say it.

Au contraire, everything in the entire Gospel context makes it quite clear and plain that Jesus was referring to all her potential sins, but specifically including adultery.  To pose the question as you do implies that it would be OK with Him if she went back to pride, vengefulness, and so on as long as she slept in the right bed every night, which is just silly.  On the other hand, to exclude adultery, when that was the overarching background of the entire tableau, would be simply perverse.

One might as well argue that in the sentence “All lesbians and gays could decide not to act on their sexual orientation”, the their need not refer to the L&Gs; it could just as well refer to the Non-Juror Bishops—we have to infer from the context.

Bruce, qubbling about which sin is rather amusing, but the Man’s message was “Sin, no more.  Go.  I forgive.” - Inverted for clarity.  The process was sin/penalty/forgiveness/penance&amendment; of life.  That part hasn’t changed however you denominate the sin.

7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

First, I’ve always wanted to know what he wrote in the sand

Wow, (and I know some will disagree) here we have faith/works righteousness worked out in a simple story.  Jesus offers forgiveness, blanket and total based on the womans faith based upon here faithhulness yet to come. 

As the Son of God he knew of her sins, as he knew then even of ours now, and yet he pronounces that he does not accuse her.  His pronouncement of forgiveness is blanket; universal.  So then is the admonition to sin no more. 

I have alway thought that the landuage I heard in this story “go forth and sin no more” put it a little more clearly.

Let us tell the story a little differently.  After a week long binge of sex, drugs and gambling with a woman (not my wife) in Tunica I am stopped and a DUI checkpoint.  I’ve had two beers in the last hour and a half (not while driving).  Say this Jesus fellow steps out and askes the cops which one of them is not just as guilty and they let me off. 

Jesus turns to me, says :“Were are the accusers? As they they don’t accuse you neither do I. Go and sin no more.” 

I get in my car, go home and never touch a drop again for the rest of my life.  Do you think that come the day He sits judgement on me that he’ll just give me a pass on the adultry, drugs and lies?  I don’t.

RSB

Go and sin no more…

A.  Since this line is not present in what scholars tell us are more reliable texts I questions the wisdom of pursuing discussion too far.  That said… 

B.  dwstroudmd,  Where is the penalty phase… I didn’t see that.
 
C.  Not only does Jesus not condemn the woman, he does not condemn the others either.  He gives them an alternative which is for them to stop judging and put down their stones.  I say again, for the third time, that I have not heard any solutions from those on the conservative side what gay men and lesbians should do.  I hear a lot of condemnation but again, for the third time, this was not the method Jesus used.

Unfortunately I have both a job and a life which I need to return to.

Thank you for this conversation.

Linda McMillan
Austin

My take is that Jesus might have written “illigetimae non caborundum” in the sand.  (My Latin is very old so my spelling may be off.)

Correct, Jesus did forgive all her sins.  In our confession we pray for sins “known and unknown, things done and left undone.” so it is indeed a “blanket” petition and forgiveness.

Faith tells me that God’s mercy and forgiveness and love are truly boundless and abundant for my needs.  What more could I ask?  I continue to believe that what I will be asked when I stand before my Maker isn’t anything about such things as you suggest, but rather how well I tried to meet the needs of the least around me and how well I answered His charge from the 25th chapter of Matthew about feeding the hungry, watering the thirsty, visiting the sick and imprisoned and clothing the naked.  For He told me that what I did or failed to do for the least of these I did or failed to do for Him.  And no, I am not saying it’s ok to do the things you list, particularly since they worked toward the destruction of “right relationship” as Jesus taught. But if we believe what we profess, we are forgiven…..period…end of sentence.  If that is not the case, then the crucifixion and resurrection were for naught.

We are not called to judge the sins of anyone but ourselves.  Each will stand alone on the day of our judgment. 

And as a somewhat related aside, comments from some make it quite clear that they have no personal relationships with lesbians and gays who share the same faith they have.  Snide remarks only indicate how low someone has sunk rather than denigrate those to whom they were directed.

Bruce Garner

<blockquote>My take is that Jesus might have written “illigetimae non caborundum” in the sand.  (My Latin is very old so my spelling may be off.) </bockquote>

Latin, my my, you must have seen the Passion.  I am sure as God Jesus could have written it, but I’m guessing it would have been in areameic - maybe greek if it was a highbrow crowd.

RE: “And as a somewhat related aside, comments from some make it quite clear that they have no personal relationships with lesbians and gays who share the same faith they have.”

I haven’t seen one comment like that—not that, of course, you would know a thing about the personal relationships that commenters on this blog have with gay people.

Most of the gay activists, of course, do not begin with the same foundational worldviews as those who believe the Christian gospel.  But that is not at all saying that gay people in general cannot be Christian believers.  For instance, Episcopalienated appears to be a believer. 

And of course, there are numerous gay people who fall into sin, repent, and return to the Lord, and fall into sin again—just like all the rest of sinful Christians.

But that’s because he isn’t a gay person in the sense that he isn’t positive about being gay or open to being part of a gay relationship.

I think the comment referred to gay people who are in relationships but regard themselves as Christians. You don’t regard them as Christians, and I would fully agree that the world view is entirely different.

That’s something of a relief!

Bruce:

You say:

We are not called to judge the sins of anyone but ourselves.  Each will stand alone on the day of our judgment.

But the Church is called upon to determine what is acceptable Christian behavior.  You may very well choose to disbelieve that clear teaching of catholic Christianity, and that is up to you.  But the Church, as Church may not choose to disbelieve the clear teaching of catholic Christianity.

In other words, Bruce, I have no objection to you taking your chances with Almighty God by disregarding clear Biblical and catholic teaching of the worldwide Christian church throughout all time and space.  But please don’t try to force others to take that chance with you.

If liberal Episcopalians do not feel that they are able to live within the Anglican Communion (and remember that TEC is defined constitutionally as a member thereof) then please do the honorable thing and admit this, and allow those Episcopalians who do choose to remain Anglican to do so.  This will mean, of course, an amicable split of TEC proper.

I am willing to live by John-David Schofield’s gracious words:

Schofield said he plans to stay in his post. He also would allow dissenting congregations to keep their churches, provided that they do not leave the diocese saddled with debt.

“Let them have their freedom, and a bishop more in harmony with their theology,” Schofield said. “If someone wants to go their own way, God bless them.”

Are you?

I think the comment referred to gay people who are in relationships but regard themselves as Christians. You don’t regard them as Christians, and I would fully agree that the world view is entirely different.

No.  We believe that if they have been Baptised (accepted Christ as Lord and Savior) then they are Christians.  Now Mik,e there is a whole lot of difference between that and living the way God wants us to.  We are all sinners and we all need to walk closer to Him. 

RSB

But they believe that they can both be Christians and be in a gay relationship, and openly say so. You don’t agree, to the extent that you wish to bar them from the church for holding that view!

Mersey,

I khave know christians who would swear you can love the bottle and love Christ.  They were wrong, and it would have been wrong of me to have told them what they were doing was right.  It did not mean that they were not christians, just that they were wrong.

And yes BTW I am against drunks as bishops too.

RSB

Merseymike:  I don’t see orthodox Anglicans as wishing to bar anyone from the church for holding views at variance with catholic Christianity.  Not everyone who is welcome to church is necessarily welcome to church leadership positions.  There is a difference.