Total visitors right now: 77

Click here to check your private inbox.

Welcome to Stand Firm!

Katharine Schori Hits Bottom, Digs

Monday, January 7, 2008 • 9:26 am


CourageMan on the presiding bishop’s new low:

Does Bishopess OutersRUs really think that she will change the mind on this issue of any closeted-gay bishop by threatening, however sotto voce, his public humiliation? Does she think they’re either so spineless (exposure to the bishops in her own ECUSA may have encouraged this perception) or so ruled by their dicks (exposure to gay groups in her own ECUSA may have encouraged this perception) that they will not take such a threat as an affront worthy of digging in their heels (even if those heels be Prada-clad). But regardless of anything, on absolute principle, it’s a call she has no right to make (see Gay Patriot and Andrew Sullivan on that principle, called “playing God”).

Meanwhile, Peter Ould, who tipped me to the CourageMan post, comments:

The reason why the blogger outed the Bishop and why the liberal feeding frenzy commenced wasn’t because of the Bishop’s hypocrisy. In fact, the Bishop in question has been commitedly single and celibate for many years. There is nothing hypocritical about someone who rejects a sinful past, embraces the orthodox position and lifestyle and then supports others who do the same (trust me on this one). There is nothing self-repressive about someone who realises that they have sinned in the past and now lives a life centred on holiness, not sexual gratification. There is however one expression that can describe the activity of God in transforming someone’s life and leading them on the path of righteousness.

Grace.

There it is again, that wonderful word. It is, as John Newton would say, “Amazing”. It’s a sweet sound that saves wretched sinners, that makes us found when we were lost, that lets the blind see. Grace forgives and grace leads on. It points to a sinless heaven not a fallen earth. It breaks down stereotypes rather than reinforcing prejudices.

Grace transforms.

And that, my friends, is the real reason the liberal bloggers have it in for the Bishop in question. They don’t like grace because it requires an acknowledgement of sin, and they particularly don’t like the grace that God has exhibited in this specific Bishop’s life.

How so? Very simple:

  * The choices made by the Bishop in the past decade reveals the lie that one’s sexual attraction dictates one’s whole life
  * The Bishop’s consequent rejection of prior sexual activity challenges the liberal notion that gay sex is holy

This is why the liberals have to attack this Bishop, because his current lifestyle and his rejection of not only his past sexual activity but also the contemporary pro-gay agenda is a denial of everything they stand for. How dare he? How could he?


58 Comments • Print-friendlyPrint-friendly w/commentsShare on Facebook
Comments:

Yeah, I thought largely the same thing.  A drive-by smearing of every single Bishop, and, I guess, all the married ones as well.

And, it’s perfect.  If one calls for proof, one is just jumping into the cesspool with her.  If one dismisses her allegation, it’s because one is homophobic or not living in the real world.

[1] Posted by Paul B on 01-07-2008 at 11:17 AM • top

One very interesting feature of the two posts linked above is that neither makes explicit the link that I suspect will be made immediately by those in the CofE.  Schori goes on BBC on Jan. 1 claiming there is a double standard in the CofE and other gay bishops.  Two days later a CofE bishop is identified as gay by an American blogger with wide support from well-known ECUSA activists and bloggers—be sure to read the comments at the blog in question.  No one is publicly linking the outing to Schori that I am aware of, but you can be sure that those in the CofE are drawing that inference.

Steve Martin once said that some people have a way with words and others, no have way.  The presiding klutz strikes again.

[2] Posted by wildfire on 01-07-2008 at 11:54 AM • top

Does an exception a rule prove?  I was really sorry to see the tone of recent attacks on individuals in this piece by the PB as I was by personal attacks made on the PB’s status with the Lord and by the denials made on other blogs by US individuals.  Who are we to comment on the status of others, their faith or make innuendo part of the argument.  As Christians, can’t we raise our game.

People get hurt, faith gets damaged, and without recourse to law, reputations are damaged - I wish we could all behave more like Christians.

My 2 cents/pence.

[3] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 01-07-2008 at 12:04 PM • top

Pageantmaster, it’s difficult to see how that could happen, since the topic at hand is contradictory definitions of what acting like Christians means.  How would we know?

[4] Posted by Ed the Roman on 01-07-2008 at 12:08 PM • top

See how these Christians love one another?  is that the test? and do we measure up - well hardly - and it’s getting worse.

[5] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 01-07-2008 at 12:12 PM • top

Pageantmaster, if I could ask a follow-up question.  Would you mind running #3 by me again?  You are being too subtle for me.  I’m not following the exception/rule point and the reference to denials by other bloggers.

[6] Posted by wildfire on 01-07-2008 at 12:23 PM • top

Maybe KJS can hire Sen. Mitchell to investigate. His work with MLB is exactly the kind of evidence she seems to be looking for…

[7] Posted by texex on 01-07-2008 at 12:31 PM • top

I’ve had a virtuous week Ed - subtle enough for you?

And its a general observation - quality of debate you know.

[8] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 01-07-2008 at 12:31 PM • top

I see.  I think. grin

[9] Posted by Ed the Roman on 01-07-2008 at 12:55 PM • top

I think I may have meant Mark the Roman or perhaps Ed McCall

[10] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 01-07-2008 at 01:26 PM • top

No one is publicly linking the outing to Schori that I am aware of, but you can be sure that those in the CofE are drawing that inference.

The blogger admitted that it the KJS interview that inspired him to out the bishop.  It is in his comment posted on 1/5/07 at 9:52 a.m. of the original outting thread.

[11] Posted by JackieB on 01-07-2008 at 01:49 PM • top

What a bazaar thread… While I think it is healthy to discuss human sexuality in the context of sin and redemption, I do not think it appropriate to use one’s sexuality against them as a weapon, threat, or to extort. I was reading an article on another blog which was an interview with a celibate bishop. One of the first questions asked him about rumors that he was homosexual, or had been actively so at one time… How rude! Not only that, how inappropriate! I would never have believed one way or another about this saintly bishop, what an ugly thought to invade a reader’s mind with. How sick are we as traditional Christians that we have become so obsessed with this subject that we are crucifying our own, and crucifying the Body of Christ. These blogs that Gregg has quoted show that the liberals have awakened to a new weapon, threats of “outing.” I find this even more distressing than the conservative hate speech because it shows the compassion that liberal churchpeople claim for gay people is shallow indeed. Closeted Gay people are now just so much fodder for attack against traditionalists. Neither side seems compassionate for the gay person—- or of their rights in a free society—- only of the way to exploit them. Sad commentary indeed…

[12] Posted by FrVan on 01-07-2008 at 02:10 PM • top

What a bazaar thread… While I think it is healthy to discuss human sexuality in the context of sin and redemption

How odd… I would say that it’s “healthy” to discuss disordered/deviant sexual behavior in the context of sin and redemption.

I’d say “human sexuality” falls more under the “really awesome gifts of God” context. smile

[13] Posted by Positive Phototaxis on 01-07-2008 at 02:18 PM • top

Following through on finding the blog that did the outing and then followed through on the Wikipedia page for the bishop it has a discussion of his commitment to celibacy as a bishop based on to an interview he gave in 1998 for New Directions:

Whatever the wonderings and wanderings of his former life, for which he must repent, as a bishop he must embrace the discipline of chastity as a gift.

He follows this with

Of course I need people’s prayers, encouragement, and I need my friends. And like every celibate, I need people to honour and trust my commitment to it as a way of life. Sadly, it is my experience that the response is often cynical or unbelieving.

Elsewhere in the same interview, he describes an experience in his younger days:

Being too young was catching up with me! I saw the Bishop and he told me to “go out and sin a bit!”. Go and learn that you need to be forgiven.

[14] Posted by Deja Vu on 01-07-2008 at 02:30 PM • top

His exact words: “inspired by the Presiding Bishops call for honesty in these matters”.  Thanks Jackie for pointing this out.  I missed it.  Note that he also mentions that he is talking to the press.  Surely the CofE will be seething across the board about this.

[15] Posted by wildfire on 01-07-2008 at 02:33 PM • top

just for the record: chastity and celibacy are two different things entirely. I am married, yet I try to live a chaste life. All Christians are enjoined to embrace chastity—not necessarily celibacy.

[16] Posted by bluenarrative on 01-07-2008 at 02:33 PM • top

Dear Positive Phototaxis:
  I accept your editorial work, thank you…But, my point is for us all to beware and to guard against a prurient interest on the subject of human sexuality, of any expression, because such discussion can become a “disordered/deviant sexual behavior” of its own—-even in “the context of sin and redemption.” Which is why I find this thread about liberal hate acts against gay people so disturbing, and even the writings of many conservative blogs to be disturbing as well. People are becoming too concerned about individual persons and their sexual habits…It is unhealthy.
  On the other hand, I agree that “human sexuality” falls more under the “really awesome gifts of God” context. Waaahooooo!

[17] Posted by FrVan on 01-07-2008 at 02:38 PM • top

FrVan,  You make an important voice, and have articulated something that I have often felt, but could not quite put into words. Thank you. This thing really does cut both ways, doesn’t it?

[18] Posted by bluenarrative on 01-07-2008 at 02:51 PM • top

“You make an important POINT…” that should read… I’ve been at my keyboard since dawn. But some typos that I produce are ridiculous!

[19] Posted by bluenarrative on 01-07-2008 at 02:52 PM • top

“chastity and celibacy are two different things entirely”
Dear Bluenarrative:
Thank you for the above point, I think we are often forgetting the importance of chastity in the modern world… I too am married, fortunately I find as I grow older and get “chaste” less, even when I don’t run away, that chastity is much easier… Sorry, couldn’t resist a bad pun…

[20] Posted by FrVan on 01-07-2008 at 03:02 PM • top

FrVan,  I envy you, if you truly find chasity easier as you grow older. My own experience is that my hormonal drives (and all of the subsequent twists of the imagination, etc.) are no more diminished in me today than when I was 16 years old. Throughout my Christian walk, chastity has ALWAYS been hard for me to maintain. And I strongly suspect it is this way for many Christian men, regardless of their sexual orientation or whatever.

[21] Posted by bluenarrative on 01-07-2008 at 03:10 PM • top

Well, I disagree with FrVan about homosexuality. I don’t think we should treat homosexuality as so ugly that it can’t be discussed. And certainly we don’t want prissy, squeamish bishops.

I have made this argument previously about rape and the virgin birth. I believe in the virgin birth, but I think it is very important that we not reject the Reappraiser idea that Mary may have been a rape victim because   it is such an ugly thought. There are good reasons to reject the idea, but the ugly, lowliness of it is not one.

I do believe that God is with us even in the most disturbing, ugly lowly situations. That is what Emmanuel means to me. God is present, even in the worst situations. And can redeem them.

It is only human if a bishop, in his younger days, had experiences that he later repented. Let’s not expect our bishops to have lived lives of perfection. Better that they have found redemption and grace in Jesus Christ. And can model holiness in life now as bishops.

[22] Posted by Deja Vu on 01-07-2008 at 03:14 PM • top

#12- Father Van.
Although I have disagreed with you in the past I want to thank you for such a clear and poignant articulation of this new arena of ugliness that the pb has chosen to engage. In layman’s terms it is blackmail.Invite VGR or invite very public personal vendettas without substantiation. Jesus weeps.

Intercessor

[23] Posted by Intercessor on 01-07-2008 at 03:14 PM • top

“I do believe that God is with us even in the most disturbing, ugly lowly situations. That is what Emmanuel means to me. God is present, even in the worst situations. And can redeem them.”

Dear Deja Vu: At least on the above quoted point we agree, if not on the other two…

And thank you Intercessor

[24] Posted by FrVan on 01-07-2008 at 03:19 PM • top

If hot ‘n spicy lives render one unfit to be a bishop, then we would never have had the benefit of St Augustine.

I have a blog thingy

[25] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 01-07-2008 at 03:34 PM • top

It always seems to happen: Every time I start to think that TEC and its mandarins can’t get any more vile, viscious, dirty, seedy and diseased, they make another move that sets new standards of despicable behavior.  May the Devil take them.

[26] Posted by Jeffersonian on 01-07-2008 at 03:43 PM • top

Augustine’s life went on a blander diet when he converted, though.  It’s one thing to set your hair on fire.  It’s another to set your hair on fire while clergy.

[27] Posted by Ed the Roman on 01-07-2008 at 03:51 PM • top

“I don’t think we should treat homosexuality as so ugly that it can’t be discussed”

Oh, and Deja Vu, I didn’t say the above about homosexuality…Only that we should not use gay folks and their sexual preference as tactical weapons in a battle of social and religious mores. It is one thing to discuss homosexuality, another to rip apart the lives of people through threats, intimidation’s, or blackmail…regardless of one’s point of view.

[28] Posted by FrVan on 01-07-2008 at 03:52 PM • top

I’ve read what the bishop in question said to New Directions magazine 10 years ago, but I do not read it in the same way that Ould does.  I read the Bishop as saying that he has serious personal doubts about church teaching on homosexuality, but as bishop he is required to teach nothing other than what the church teaches and live accordingly, and he is trying to do just that.  In reality, this is not that much different from the Rowan Williams position and not the full-blooded “I unequivically repent of my sinful homosexual past” that some, especially on the evangelical wing, would insist.

That said, his outing was malicious on several levels.  First, they justified his outing on grounds of hypocrisy, when there is no hypocrisy.  (It was sufficient to be deemed a “hypocrite” in the minds of the bloggers for the said bishop to have signed the letter supporting Bishop Schofield’s departure from the Episcopal Church.)  Second, traditional Christian morality says that detraction is mortal sin.  This is something that both gay activists and anti-gay activists forget, insofar as both factions have a strong tendency to maliciously expose people’s private sexual lives.  Third, we have no idea who this blogger is that made the allegations and have no way of judging whether the allegations are true.  (That said, the bishop in question more or less admitted his homosexuality though not in so many words).  Such allegations also included hearsay and third- or fourth-hand scuttlebutt which are probative of nothing. 

These malicious small-minded people who outed the bishop are counting on the readership of SFIF and Anglican evangelicals in general to howl for this bishop’s head on a platter.  Whatever you do, don’t prove them correct and take the bait.

[29] Posted by Violent Papist on 01-07-2008 at 03:56 PM • top

Ed,

I agree. But I think part of being a Christian is acknowledging our own and others frailty. The one word that appears anathema to our Worth Opponents is repentance, And ironically enough, thats the one word that every apostle, saint, Church Father, Reformer and Counter-Reformer reckoned to be essential to living in Christ. If we do not repent of our sins, then we distance ourselves from God (How’s that for being Augustinian?) and we strain our very nature.

I think even bishops must repent from time to time. Shocking but true.

I have a blog thingy

[30] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 01-07-2008 at 04:01 PM • top

Also note that “Fr. Jake” has encouraged people who have “dirt” on Bishop Schofield (and presumably others) to contact him privately, and he will refer them to some private investigators who are snooping into the private lives of conservative Anglicans.  It is to this, that some of the self-proclaimed “inclusive” and “tolerant” people have lowered themselves.

[31] Posted by Violent Papist on 01-07-2008 at 04:09 PM • top

Are you serious about “Fr. Jake?!?” I’ve been to his site once, and would never suspect him of such skulduggery. Not a priest of the Church.

[32] Posted by FrVan on 01-07-2008 at 04:13 PM • top

Does anyone else find PB Schoris endless fixation on the homosexuality thing a bit overplayed.  Could she hiding something?

[33] Posted by The Templar on 01-07-2008 at 04:17 PM • top

No more than our fixation on her fixation with homosexuality means we are hiding anything…

[34] Posted by FrVan on 01-07-2008 at 04:19 PM • top

Trust Jake? Never!  He allows vicious libel and malicious gossip, but bans anyone who call any of his regulars on his/her hate speech.  All he needs is a skirt and sweater with the letter TEC embossed acrosss the chest to complete his persona as TEC’s biggest cheerleader.

[35] Posted by DaveG on 01-07-2008 at 04:22 PM • top

“So, where does this leave us with Bp. Schofield’s denial? I’m not fully convinced, for reasons I’ll get into in a minute. But, the bottom line for now is that until we have actual accusations, with names and dates and full statements from those who are accusing the Bishop, he remains a celibate man who has honored those particular vows. End of story. If someone wants to make such an accusation, I can put you in touch with a number of investigative reporters who have been asking for such information. Send me an email. But until that time, I suggest that we not repeat second and third hand stories, unless we have solid statements to back them up.”

http://frjakestopstheworld.blogspot.com/2008/01/former-episcopal-bishop-of-san-joaquin.html

[36] Posted by Violent Papist on 01-07-2008 at 04:23 PM • top

VP

counting on the readership of SFIF and Anglican evangelicals in general to howl for this bishop’s head on a platter.

... note that “Fr. Jake” has encouraged people who have “dirt” on Bishop Schofield (and presumably others) to contact him privately, and he will refer them to some private investigators who are snooping into the private lives of conservative Anglicans.

I sincerely hope that no Anglicans would do anything of the sort - this is not ‘Lord of the Flies’

[37] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 01-07-2008 at 04:24 PM • top

My comments about FrJake were meant in jest… I am losing my touch!

[38] Posted by FrVan on 01-07-2008 at 04:26 PM • top

VP - as I read Fr Jake he is actually shutting down malicious gossip on his blog which people are not prepared to substantiate.

[39] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 01-07-2008 at 04:27 PM • top

Pageantmaster:  Fr. Jake is trying to have it both ways.  While shutting down gossip on his blog (which could potentially get him into legal trouble), he is encouraging people with derogatory information to contact him privately so that they may spread the dirt elsewhere.

Of course, as I said above, it is not just the gay activist types that are doing this, but the anti-gays as well.  David Virtue, for one, has been publishing highly defamatory innuendo about certain liberal bishops for years.  Of course, Virtue’s gambling that the bishops in question wouldn’t dare to sue him for libel.  While that’s a pretty good bet, it’s public behavior totally unbecoming a person who claims to be engaging in “Christian journalism.”  Kettle, meet pot.  Pot, meet kettle.

[40] Posted by Violent Papist on 01-07-2008 at 04:39 PM • top

If the item about Jake and the private detectives is true, then that is truly sad and very disturbing.

Regarding celibate homosexuals being “hypocritical” it seems to make perfect sense to me that a person who has seen the soft underbelly of the lifestyle associated with that particular orientation would be the most vehement about the harm it does both physically and spiritually.  This concept really gets the goat of the folks on the other side of the issue.  They are particulaly shrill about it.  This is not their finest moment.  If this were such a happy way to live, you’d think they would be sweetness and light instead of constanting attempting to “out” fellow sufferers.  I am reminded of behavior I see in my classroom (I am a teacher) when I admonish a child about some behavior and the first thing he does is say “but HE did it, too!”

[41] Posted by GoodMissMurphy on 01-07-2008 at 04:41 PM • top

“If the item about Jake and the private detectives is true, then that is truly sad and very disturbing.”

I recalled Father Jake’s post as referring “private investigators” but he actually said “investigative reporters.”  Not quite the same thing, but for the purpose of encouraging people to come forward with “dirt” it amounts to the same thing.

[42] Posted by Violent Papist on 01-07-2008 at 04:53 PM • top

I thank the Lord daily that I continuously have no clue nor cares as to what “Fr.Jake” says. Reminds me of The Joe Pine show in the 60’s.

Intercessor

[43] Posted by Intercessor on 01-07-2008 at 04:56 PM • top

If you want ruthlessness, just cross one-a them tolerant, broad-minded and compassionate types.

[44] Posted by Jeffersonian on 01-07-2008 at 05:15 PM • top

Thanks for linking, Mr. Griffith. I know something was “wrong” when the Sitemeter broke.

For the record, I did know of the explicitly-named “I had sex with Bishop So-and-So” claims. I deliberately did not, nor will I, name either the bishop nor the man making the claims. Exactly BECAUSE I won’t play Bishop Signorile’s game. The gay man making the charge who is wining “hypocrite” is doing something he shouldn’t, but he has at least put himself out there, his fingerprints on the gun (to overextend the Orwell). He is merely a jerk. Bishop [sic] Schori doesn’t even rise to that level.

[45] Posted by CourageMan on 01-07-2008 at 05:18 PM • top

I just want to say that there is no truth to the rumor that Schori is dishonest. No truth at all that she lied on her resume. Likewise, there is no truth to the rumor that she made up being Dean of a school of theology.

There are many investigative reporters out there who love these kinds of stories, so if anyone has heard other stories of Shori’s dishonesty, please contact one of those reporters so that these allegations can be thoroughly investigated and be laid to rest.

[46] Posted by BillS on 01-07-2008 at 05:27 PM • top

Schori was not the trigger or the excuse for the outing.  The trigger was the “we support you” letter to Bishop Schofield.  Moreover, the comparison of Schori to Michael Signorile is hysterical (and unfair) hyperbole because she never outed anyone nor threatened to.  Rather, she made an observation that was simultaneously provocative, accurate, and impertinent. Having observed “Courage Man” for a while, this is not his first example of hysterical hyperbole over the years.

[47] Posted by Violent Papist on 01-07-2008 at 05:37 PM • top

Sorry, VP, but that’s a bit disingenuous.  By declaring that there are currently partnered gay bishops in the CoE, Schori had to have known that would set off a hunt for same, if not by the media then by others eager to support the revisionist line.  She knew what she was doing.

[48] Posted by Jeffersonian on 01-07-2008 at 05:48 PM • top

Schori was not the trigger or the excuse for the outing.

Sorry, VP, but the outer himself said otherwise. He said himself that he was “inspired by” Bishop Schori’s BBC interview in doing what he did. I’d be happy to provide you with the citation if you email to me privately (I won’t put it up publicly) at the address at my site.

And yes, I agree a comparison to Signorile is unfair. To Signorile. He is far more authentic, courageous and truthful than Bishop [sic] Smarmi.

[49] Posted by CourageMan on 01-07-2008 at 05:54 PM • top

#47

Again, read what the person who did the outing actually said.  In his own words: he was “inspired by the Presiding Bishops call for honesty in these matters”.  See Jackie’s #11 and my #15 above.

[50] Posted by wildfire on 01-07-2008 at 05:54 PM • top

I don’t like Signorile at all, but he sails under his right colors.

[51] Posted by Ed the Roman on 01-07-2008 at 06:05 PM • top

Jeffersonian:  I think you overestimate Schori’s cleverness and astuteness, not to mention any evidence of any intent.  This was not quite a “who will rid me of this turbulent priest” moment, but undoubtedly she was trying to stir the pot.

Courageman:  I now see where the outer said where he was inspired by the PB, but that is not what he originally said and, in both cases, said that the letter the bishop signed was the trigger.  As far as the PB goes, I guess I don’t hate her quite as much as you do, and I don’t think Signorile is at all “authentic,” “courageous,” or necessarily “truthful” for that matter.  He is a dark, bitter crank that never contributed anything positive to society, but is only happy when he is tearing people down.  If that is authenticity or courage, than give me some insincerity and cowardliness instead.

[52] Posted by Violent Papist on 01-07-2008 at 06:06 PM • top

Oh, don’t get me wrong, VP ... I also think Signorile is a dark, bitter crank that never contributed anything positive to society, but is only happy when he is tearing people down.

But he is who he claims to be; Bishop Smarmi is not. Personal tastes in sinners differ, I realize, but I prefer the authentic sinner to the wolf-in-sheep’s clothing.

[53] Posted by CourageMan on 01-07-2008 at 06:15 PM • top

Jeffersonian:  I think you overestimate Schori’s cleverness and astuteness, not to mention any evidence of any intent.  This was not quite a “who will rid me of this turbulent priest” moment, but undoubtedly she was trying to stir the pot.

Please.  This is just short of mentioning, in passing, that they’ve got the corpse of a Roswell space alien in a jar of formaldehyde over at 815.  The very first question will be “who is it?”

[54] Posted by Jeffersonian on 01-07-2008 at 07:10 PM • top
[55] Posted by BabyBlue on 01-07-2008 at 08:02 PM • top

There is a difference between outing a bishop who is currently in a gay partnered relationship (as Schori claimed) and making public a brief sexual encounter of 15 years ago. In the first case, the bishop is clearly committed to ongoing homosexual behavior. In the second case, the person may have repented and be committed to a chaste lifestyle.

As a self professed Reasserter, I don’t mind that a bishop’s particular besetting sin is homosexual attractions. We are all sinners here. I do mind if the bishop denies a sin is a sin, or is committed to living a secret life of sin.

[56] Posted by Deja Vu on 01-07-2008 at 08:20 PM • top

Update:

I had a post here that concerned a couple of previous encounters that I had with Bp {XYZ}. I have made my point and so the material is gone now.

Ahhhhhhh, yeah.  Speaks for itself.

[57] Posted by J Eppinga on 01-08-2008 at 06:58 AM • top

Repentence.  Hmmm….  Don’t we confess our sins and then get absolution from our priest BEFORE taking Holy Communion?  We cannot be in the presence of God unless we are Holy.  Ever.  We are made Holy by Jesus’ sacrifice; by His grace.  He died for ALL to be saved.  But, unless we CONFESS and REPENT, we CANNOT RECEIVE that gift of grace.
If someone chooses a homosexual lifestyle, but then CONFESSES and REPENTS, he can receive the gift of grace and is forgiven, as if it never happened.  They will still have to live with the consequences of their actions - maybe a broken family, loss of a job, AIDS, Hepititus C, etc.  But they are forgiven.

[58] Posted by B. Hunter on 01-08-2008 at 05:53 PM • top

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.


Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere about the crisis in our church. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.