Video: Presiding Bishop Schori’s Deposition in Virginia Property Trial

Greg, thanks so much for making all of this available.  I can’t watch the videos at the moment given a poor connection, so I particularly appreciate the PDF of the transcript. 

Nice work…!

I haven’t read any of it yet, however, so can’t comment on the substance.  Will do that later.

It is instructive to watch the duplicity of Schori first hand. Direct, yes or no, questions are obfuscated. The real shame is that TEC has as its leader someone who is just fundamentally dishonest, beginning with lying on her resume.

A couple of things strike one at first blush:

She acknowledges that the divisions precede 2003 (though dislike of the 1979 Prayer Book is cited as the principle culprit - then again, many people here would probably agree with that). 

A constant harping on the Church of Nigeria confusing people and calling them out of Episcopal congregations. Regardless of how one feels about CANA (whether one is a federal or a communion conservative), the one thing you can say about the Northern Virginia departures was that they involved Americans making a choice - how much more democratic can you get than a general plebiscite?

And how can anyone be confused, at this point, about what CANA is? They make no secret of what they are and what they profess.

Watching he made me cringe. That is the most charitable thing I can say.
I must have missed the posts about her lying on her resume—does anyone care to point me to where that is discussed.

Wow.  Toward the end of this highlights clip (at 1:53) , if I understood the context correctly, she is being asked about her signature on the Primates’ Dar es Salaam Communique which asked for, among other things, a halt to same-sex blessings and the consecration of bishops in same-sex relationships.  She is asked directly whether she agrees with the language and whether that statement accurately reflects her belief and position.  She finally answers “no” (at 3:36), meaning, it seems, that she knowingly signed a statement by the Primates at that meeting which would have a direct affect on the whole Episcopal Church without believing it or intending to abide by it herself or committing the church to abide by it.

Wow.

I hope that every single primate sees this.

Her mouth dries up when confronted with the reality of her personal responsibility of involving lawyers to file suit against these eleven congregations.  “That is what we do,” she says of her cadre of bullies.  I thought her job was to defend the faith once given to the saints by Jesus Himself so that all could be saved from sin, born again and transformed by the Holy Spirit.  This seems pretty cold-blooded against those who continue to hold to the faith.

Schori claimed on her resume claimed to be dean of a school of theology that did not exist. At best it was a glorified Sunday School.

Oh I sigh. It is so very hard to watch these videos. On the one hand I want to remain faithful to my first responsibility which is to pray for her repentance, “God in heaven, soften her heart!” But on the other, I am so angry at her. God alone knows her in the deep places. It is very difficult to watch her face and hear her words without concluding that she is evil. When she calls on “the ancient counsels of the Church” as an authority which gives continuing light to her (and our) path, I cannot understand how she does so with a shred of intellectual and moral integrity. Does she not have any eyes to see that the ancient counsels are embedded in a theological universe that she has fundamentally rejected and forsaken? Lord, have mercy upon her soul—and for all of us.

Mother Goose has already covered this: 

There was a crooked lady and she walked a crooked mile,
She found a crooked sixpence upon a crooked stile.
She bought a crooked cat, which caught a crooked mouse.
And they all lived together in a little crooked house…

Most of us who are regular readers of Stand Firm already know all this…so I am really surprised at the comments…perhaps we are still in denial?

At the end of the transcript is an interesting line of questioning that is not fully pursued. Who or what defines the boundaries of a Province? Are they self defined, and if so, why can they not be changed if those living within the boundaries so desire?

BillS,

Check the subsequent video posts - I believe they do pursue the question further.

Oh my gosh this video is making me so angry.  She signed it as if to say that she understands that some people are mad?  C’mon.

Golly
I wasn’t at Dar - wonder what those who were think of her answer.

Dear Greg,

I just want you to know that I think your posting these videos of the deposition are . . .

. . . really, really “divisive”.

Why must you do something so hateful and . . . divisive.

It would have been much more unifying for none of us Episcopal parishioners to have seen this.

; > )

Sooooooo much effort to just get a simple “No” out of Kate!!! LOL How can she even look at herself in a mirror and not be sorely ashamed. Pitiful.

Just a small correction - NOBODY signed the Primates’ Dar es Salaam Communique.  This was verbal question, verbal answer.  So - it’s her word against whomever as to whether she actually said YES, or NO, or YES with muttered reservations (in the true Anglican style).  They shudda’ had a Video/Tape recorder.  I wasn’t there (and neither probably was anybody on this board) so I don’t know for sure.

Like they say “she said - he said”.

Take a good, long look at her body language as the deposition goes on. Also, her facial expressions reveal more about her than her actual replies.

I have a blog thingy

Yes, Star-ace (18). They “shudda” had a recorder—but isn’t it a shame that it was needed!  Thanks, Greg, for the videos—if I can swallow enough Maalox and Valium I might be able to watch.

I wasn’t there (and neither probably was anybody on this board) so I don’t know for sure.
Like they say “she said - he said”.

star ace-
It is more like: she said- she said.  Her remarks at the post DeS press conference, several days later in NY, and at the HoB (March) and the HoB (September) and then in the deposition are self contradictory.  She has 5 different “recollections” on what she said.

Personally, ++Drexel Gomez’ word was good enough for me.  And his take on the matter has been confirmed by enough people who were there to satisfy any rational demand for witnesses.

“Let your yes be yes.”- nowhere does it say anything about crossing your fingers or mumbling under your breath.

The PB, thinking through the whole thing:  “MUST NOT say division.  Don’t say division.  NO, NO division.  Use another word.  No division”

Star-ace, the following link is to the Episcopal Life Online press statement released on February 19, BEFORE the PB got back to the US and got the word from the BIG GUYS in TEC.  Read this.  There’s not a hint that she said no to it.  All that backing away came later when she got back to NY.  The following excerpt suggests exactly the opposite.

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/78650_82721_ENG_HTM.htm

Jefferts Schori said the Primates “have also acknowledged and supported” her November 2006 proposal to name a primatial vicar who would assume some pastoral duties at the Presiding Bishop’s direction.

“The hope is that the proposed primatial vicar will provide enough relief on both sides that the property disputes can be resolved in a way that does not alienate property and allows congregations access,” Jefferts Schori said.

She said the Pastoral Council has been requested “to provide accountability for the primatial vicar proposal, as well as for other Provinces that have intervened.”

Overall, Jefferts Schori said the Primates’ Meeting demonstrated “a positive sense of collegiality, especially in the Bible studies and among Provinces where these issues have been robustly discussed. In addition, a number of Provinces are engaged in the Listening Process, and that is positive.”

Greg!  I have been wondering why these were’t on the internet yet.  Thanks so much!  Looks like tonight will be a popcorn night.

Greg, thanks for sacrificing yourself to produce these ‘highlights,’ I don’t think I have a stomach to do that!

Question: When she states the ‘ancient ban against bishops crossing borders—and talks about territories’
isn’t that what TEC is doing when it has a bishop in Jerusalem and other parts of the world? Or am I missing a huge gerermanding of the global map?

#8:

Does she not have any eyes to see that the ancient counsels are embedded in a theological universe that she has fundamentally rejected and forsaken?

IMO, I think the answer here is that KJS was never truly grounded in the Historic Faith in the first place, even before she chose the career path of becoming an Episcopal clergyperson after her oceanographic career lost its funding (I think that was part of her history).  I believe her “theological universe” is very small an built on sand, if not on Jello.

Her “theological universe” can be put in a very small box.

I just can’t get over how arrogant she looks during the taping.  It’s so angering.  So much double speak!

As to whether she (+KJS) said yes at DeS, +Hutchinson of Canada said in an interview that he asked her personally if “she could live with this (the DeS Communique)” and told her that he would not assent if she couldn’t. she replied that she could and both verbally assented along with every other primate present. Nobody ever said that she was heard to say anything other than “yes” when the primates were polled by +Cantuar at the end of the meeting.

the snarkster

sorry guys…she was brillaint…ever been deposed?  I know of few men who could pull off the bits and pieces we were able to see.  Was it a cut and paste?...certainly not the entire deposition…the picking apart of this you all do makes me laugh…not too much to go on so the bits and pieces are what you have…I mean taking a drink of water and discussing that?  Really boys!

And yet . . . Jessie felt impelled to comment over here.  LOL!

RE: “certainly not the entire deposition . . . “

But there is such good news, Jessie!  There are four other posts that you can plow through so that you can see every glorious moment!

; > )

Greg,
To quote the character Count Flloyd, from the old Second City television program, “ooh, this is really scarry stuff kids”.

I love answering rhetorical questions, “ever been deposed?”

Well, jessie, yes, as a matter of fact I have been, several times, and they were not pleasant.  At one time I had four inches of transcripts of depositions.  Most of my answers were “yes,” “no,” and “I do not recall.”  Odd, the truth and a lack of obfuscation make for boring reading and quick settlement.

So, Jessie, let me ask plainly and directly: do I now have credibility to comment such that you will take my words as valid?

Or, are you just consuming band width by asking questions, the answers to which mean nothing to you?

Oh, and by the way, I am a male: does that disqualify me somehow?

(ps - my attorney for the above mention depos was the attorney who did Kobe Bryant’s prenup - made for great lunch time conversations)

I would like to take time watch the Preditor…I mean Presiding Bishop video but SpongeBob is on.

Intercessor

Archbishop Orombi in this interview with AnglicanTV also states categorically that ++KJS said “Yes” at Dar-es-Salaam.

Sarah Hey…I have great respect for your work and the things you have done…don’t agree but have respect…you are out there!  Don’t have time now to respond to the few who did comment but I was born and raised in the EC and have served in it all my life.  As most I am saddened by the events that now consume the time and expense that could be better served in so many other areas of real need…but that is where we are.  I hold an M Div. from Nashotah House so have been well educated on the perspective you all hold.  I read (and seldom comment on this site) but have respect for the passion you all have.  I do not however feel that ones sexuality should prevent them from following a call from God to any kind of ministry.  I also don’t think that the “don’t ask don’t tell” system the church has had creates the ability to be open and honest…and this is how we have lived until Robinson.  Don’t think you or anyone on this site think there are no gays in the AC that are priests, bishops etc.  I have 3 children and a husband who is also ordained and I can tell you that I have never found ones ability to serve God in any capicity has ever had anything to do with the sex of the person they sleep with at night…anymore than the color of their skin, the fact that they were male or female, or if God gave them one eye or two.  Who can really claim to know the mind of God?  Certainly not by cutting and pasteing the Bible to prove a point…God knows my kids would be dead a million times over for talking back to me! 
Anyway would love to write for another hour or so, but have to run.  Would be glad to post more tonight…

“O come, Thou Rod of Jesse, free
Thine own from Satan’s tyranny;
From depths of hell Thy people save,
And give them victory over the grave.”

Okay so it’s over the top, I’m sure Jessie’s not all bad.

Jessie, you may not care about the gender of whom one “sleeps” with, but God, through Scripture (uncut and pasted but regarded in its entirety), has indicated that He does.  He made us according to His Design. 

Deciding that we know better than God leads to grief, from the Garden of Eden to this very day.  I hope the teaching of the Doctrine of Man and the Doctrine of The Fall is making this clear at Nashotah Houe these days.

“I do not however feel that ones sexuality should prevent them from following a call from God to any kind of ministry.  I also don’t think that the “don’t ask don’t tell” system the church has had creates the ability to be open and honest ... I have never found ones ability to serve God in any capicity has ever had anything to do with the sex of the person they sleep with at night ...”

You’re KIDDING!  I would have never guessed!

Jessie,

I don’t think ones ability to serve God has anything to do with the attributes you cited.  I think it has everything to do with sin.  Yes, we all sin.  I feel it is the recognition of that sin and submission to God’s will that makes us fit to serve.  Many of the issues currently before us have to do with a “new” interpretation of what constitutes sin.  Just like God has not changed, sin has not changed either.  I think someone who sins and tries to justify that sin through a new definition is dangerous.  Please notice I did not define the sin.  This is not “all about sex” for most of us.

Maybe it’s the years of law school that have finally hardened my heart, but I couldn’t help be feel glee that my profession (JD in May!) was finally able to nail down a slippery, slick operator like ++TEC.  I know people hate lawyers, but that attorney did in about two minutes what no churchman, journalist, or Primate has been able to do since she ascended to her present office.  I thoroughly enjoyed watching her get frustrated with the lawyer’s diligence at pinning her down.

I was a litigator at a large law firm and obviously took and defended depositions.  After many years of this, my own deposition was taken and I was awful as a witness. One of our junior partners who was defending me finally said on the record “you’re tired; let’s take a break.”  Depositions ain’t easy.

I have only seen part of these videos, but I would say the problem with this deposition is not Schori’s performance.  She has both strengths and weaknesses as a witness.  The problem is her position on the issues.  The “sell to anyone except an Anglican” policy is virtually tantamount to an admission that a division has occurred.  If you want to know the impact of this deposition on the lawsuit, don’t pay attention to armchair critics like me and the rest of us.  Look at who entered this deposition into the trial record.  It wasn’t ECUSA.  It wasn’t the diocese.  It was the CANA congregations.  That tells us all we need to know.

#37 Jessie,
  As another with an MDiv from Nashotah, I must observe that some times some things just don’t take.  What part of Acts 15:20 don’t you understand?  Clearly the early “Pillars” of the first Century Church stated that the standard for ALL Christians is to, “...to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication…”.  If all Christians are to strive to abstain from fornication, how much more for those who seek to be, or are, Ordained to serve those same peoples.  We are all raised with the teaching that the best way to lead is by example.

Jessie, in case the other posts didn’t quite make it clear, the objection from many readers here (including those like myself who is trying my darndest to stay in a TEC parish) is NOT about orientation, but about BEHAVIOR. You seem to be a bit confused about that. Please understand there is a distinction. Dave

Mark McCall:

I don’t know how similar being a deposition witness is to being a mock trial (inter-school) tournament witness is, but I enjoy that almost as much as a subtle cross and a damning close.

Do you think the lawyers for Falls Church and the Anglican D. Va. are Anglicans (I ask, because I’ve noticed quite a few Episcopalians/Anglicans in law school here and elsewhere).

Diezba,

I don’t know the answer to your question since I am from New York and do not know the CANA churches or their counsel.  I seem to recall hearing +Minns say that their counsel were parishioners at one (or more) of the CANA churches, but whether that includes everyone working on the case I wouldn’t know.  I doubt it.

Good luck with the remainder of law school and with your career.  Law can still be a noble profession.

Episcopalian lawyers have one of the brightest futures of any profession I can think of, financially speaking.

The “sell to anyone except an Anglican” policy is virtually tantamount to an admission that a division has occurred.

That for me was one fo the most telling exchanges. I got the sense she’d rather sell church property to a strip-joint than to CANA.

Probably - when you run an asset-strip joint

RE: “I do not however feel that ones sexuality should prevent them from following a call from God to any kind of ministry.”

You mean, I assume, one’s sexual practice.

Thank you so much for posting this and for creating the highlights video.

She seemed to like to use the word “unhappy” to characterize her opposition. But she seemed rather “unhappy” there, herself.

She also liked to use the word “unhelpful” to describe the actions of those opposed to TEC. But her responses seemed “unhelpful” to me.

She claimed that her great concern was the possibility of creating “confusion”. But her inability to answer direct questions or, alternatively, to answer “Yes” when she meant “No” is a source of confusion, I would think.

...NOT about orientation, but about BEHAVIOR.  You seem to be a bit confused about that.

I don’t think Jessie is the least bit confused on this.  I think she is utterly indifferent to the behavior.  It’s rhetorically more effective to talk about orientation, though.

She is obviously sufferring from what we knew would be the “dis-ease” of the apostate leadership in TEC ~ Withering from not having the living springs of the Holy Spirit as good counsel.  I am actually VERY serious, and commenting more on her (in)ability to think and act wisely, although her parched state (one I can fully understand, given the stakes!) was too interesting a metaphor to pass up. 

God will help those who know and follow Him (priests, laity, bishops) to discern between good shepherds and lost shepherds; we see how foolish leadership becomes when God’s blessing is lost, and I recommend that we not gloat (although joyful celebration and praise is always in order) when this clarity is revealed. God is being very serious in making clear who has wisdom.

Carrie in MD

46, Diezba, what little I know is that there’s variety among the CANA lawyers—at least one Anglican, Catholic, Mormon.

Does anyone know if her husband ever moved to NY to be with her?

SOO00oo.. jessie, #37 - what do you think of +VGR as a Bishop?

KJS reminds me ever so much of ex President Clinton.  I mean that it all
depends on what the meaning of is is.  What a terrible thing it is to know that our church is represented by such a dishonest person.
I do pray that she will become a christian, but this kind of thing doesn’t make it easy to pray for her.

#57 David B: I don’t don’t know +VGR but from everyone that I know who does know him (on both sides of the fence) I hear he is a great person and was well loved and respected as a Canon until he became Bishop. Honestly from what I know of him through others and read about him, if I didn’t love where I am now as much as I do and I was looking, I would have no problem working in his diocese. 
#44 Loose Canon…Brother???  I don’t know when you were at “The House” but as of late I hear things have changed, and not for the better.  When I was there I learned to think and not just spit back everything I was told…there was a day that it was one of the great seminaries…but much has changed from what I understand…and most in the EC does not even know Nashotah is still there.  As for your Acts 15:20??? I have always found it pretty easy when trying to make a point to quote one verse or two. Try reading the book and see if you can’t find just as many areas that will contradict your point.  I don’t want to take the time to point them all out…but give it a shot.  Usually the one thing we find every where in the Bible is based on love for one another.  Not judging behavior, not drawing lines in the sand, just loving one another like Christ loved us.  And original sin someone brought up??? Christ died for your sins…as he healed people even prior to His death… He said your sins are forgiven….If indeed the “behavior” is what we are discussing here we must remember that our sins are forgiven before we ever do anything wrong…before we fall in love…have sex…get married…have kids….get divorced (and I think the Bible is much clearer on divorce being wrong than homosexuals) and all the horrible hurtful things we do and say to each other everyday….we are forgiven! In our confession we say forgive us our sins known and unknown….we are forgiven….before we ever ask…we are forgiven!  Is sex outside of marriage a sin? Is a practicing homosexual a sinner?  Is a divorced person damned to hell?  The only one who can forgive a sin…if and when it is a sin is God.  Yes, we are made in the image of God and unless we take into account the sin that is in every man…the time and circumstances in which each book of the Bible was written… if we are using the Bible as our only means in defining sin…we little creatures who are here on earth for a fleeting moment cannot even begin to understand much less judge others.  That is the greatest sin…you cannot cut and paste as I said before…the greatest of the commandments is love…to love one another…not judge one another.  I believe it will not be many years before there is scientific proof (and we are so close right now) that there is not a choice for people who are homosexual…it is how God made them.  It has been so since the beginning of time.  And so then what?  You will affirm God created some people to live this way and repent yourselves for the hurt and tearing down you have taken part in?  What then??? I mean really all you minds of God…What then???? Will Christ telling us not to judge each other make a difference? Will we have finally learned to stop???  Or will His commandment to love one another being the greatest commandment still have no real meaning? You can’t love someone and continue to exclude and tear them down! Or will there still be this fear…this discrimination against those who are different…those we don’t understand?  Maybe some sort of genocide might be in order at that point…you can all be God’s warriors with more than your words that kill…after all if this all in the name of God we could just rid these sinful people from this planet…and hey…if your wrong or I am wrong it will be OK…we WILL be forgiven…but someday we ALL will truly understand…Until then I continue to hope for peace for all of us, and I pray for those who have been deeply hurt and torn a part by this division…

#58 Jamesf…KJS not a Christian???  And now you know what is in the minds and hearts of all from watching a vidio?  If YOU are a Christian…pray for her even if it is hard.

I would ask again “have you ever been through a deposition???”  but then I would just have to listen to Michael+ talk about his cool attorney and completely miss the point. I thought attorneys were bound by laws of confidentiality just like priests??? Or did I get incorrect information while at Nashotah House on that too?

Disturbing.  And since Christian literally means “follower of Christ,” whom Ms. Kate does not believe is The Way…and I’ve read those interviews…I guess she is by her own admission not a Christian. 
I missed something in my reading and lessons.  I always thought the First Commandment was “I, the Lord, am your God…You shall have no other gods besides me.  You shall not worship idols…, etc.”  Why do so many educated Episcopalians…and I mean ones who went to seminaries…have such an inability to accurately quote anything in scripture correctly?  I really am curious; I have run into bizarre “quotations” of scripture time and again and even weirder interpretations.

Tumbleweed…sometimes when I am writing or speaking about an idea/feeling/issue I am more caught up in the communication of the point then the logistics of where it may accurately fall in the Bible…I am sorry because I know it can confuse things!  Yes, you are very correct that our first commandmant is to love the Lord our God with all our heart, minds….and the second is like unto it, you love your neighbor…
My point in what I was saying was that <love> is the undeniable theme throughout the NT. Love and forgiveness is the message and true gift Christ brings to us.  It is what Christ teaches in everything He says and everything He does.  He loves, He forgives, and He loves again and again…even before the cross He forgives. 
I don’t know why you have found people so often quoting inaccurately, but ask them when you hear it…I could get into reasons that I THINK it may be happening but just ask.  And I would encourage anyone to ask KJS what she meant when she made her statement everyone is so up in arms about.  She will personally answer you if you write to her, and I have always found when there is such dialogue between people when things are not clear it prevents all of the inaccurate assumptions people make…even if they take the words literally…but if you know in your heart they may not fit…and you ask…you will likely find the person did not mean to say “it” the way it came out…it works a lot better then bashing (not that YOU were!)...and then you REALLY know what was meant!  Thanks for asking me/drawing this to my attention and giving me the opportunity to explain instead of ripping on me! 

My point in what I was saying was that <love> is the undeniable theme throughout the NT

That’s simply not true. The “undeniable” theme of the NT is the divinity and consequent lordship of Jesus Christ.

True, love gets a big look in, but it’s the Lordship of Christ that is the dominant theme. I realise that Christ’s Lordship is a little less politically correct than the more tame theme of “love” (as, has already been noted here, Schori is nervous about) but please resist the urge to let our sensibilities blind us to the reality of God’s self-revelation in Scripture about Jesus.

I would say that a dominant theme of the New Testament is repentance.  Christ says follow me; go and sin no more - to the young man, the adulteress, the tax collector.  Repent of following your way and follow my way - in my love.  Love God, love your neighbor following me on the narrow path.  Don’t you think?

Jessie,

The attorney client privilege belongs to the client and the client may waive it. (Not sure what you were going on about, but that’s the general rule in that regard. There are exceptions). Communications with attorneys that are not your attorney are not privileged. So if you tell the District Attorney that the kilo of blow is yours, your goose is cooked.

Also, as far as KJS being a Christian. We know she isn’t. She is on record, in her other statements, contravening accepted Church doctrine that is not adiaphora. You can look it up!

Two other points. It’s possible to go to a good school and have nothing sink in. Just ask my dance teacher. It’s also possible to go to a bad school and get a good education. Where any of us went to school is largely irrelevant in our discussions.

Second, you’re skipping a few steps in your description of God’s attitude and policy regarding sin. Before you can be forgiven you have to repent and ask forgiveness. You also have to endeavour not to sin again. God loves us. But we do not always love Him as we ought. If we did, we wouldn’t sin. But we do sin. So repentance on a mind-numbingly regular basis is necessary. The more so in that as we grow into the fullness of His image, the more we are convicted of our imperfections. It’s no accident that smelting is an oft used image for our life in Christ.

I know for me, the comfortable and easy times in my life are the spiritually dead times. The fruitful times are the painful ones, even if it didn’t seem that way at the time.

So, when some of us look at our leadership and see unrepentant sinners and unacknowledged sin, we see not only willful disobedience to God, but also, and as a result, a spiritually dead leadership. A homosexual bishop does not bother me in the least. Nor does an alcoholic bishop. What does bother me, is a bishop that isn’t struggling through recovery or one that continues to sin, without even admitting that what he does is a sin.

Sorry for the length. I’ll try to channel brevity in the future.

I have a blog thingy

In my own life, and watching the church in the world as I do, it seems to me the great challenge is to love truth and love people at the same time. Because that calling is given us in our imitation of Christ, there can be no final conflict. But the assumption of a “final conflict” seems at the core of KJS’s understanding of discipleship, i.e. a choice between the two is required. The consequence is a weakening of the Christian vision of love, making it something much less than the holy, holy, holy love which is the heart of the biblical story. And she is purposefully leading TEC with her in that; the bishops at-large commend her and follow her. To do so is a fatal abandonment of both Scripture and “the ancient counsels” (to which in the abstract she continually appeals). I was in India recently, and walking around the Hindu temples while reading Lesslie Newbigin’s autobiography, An Unfinished Journey, made me all the more sure that TEC in its Unitarian theological commitments has really become Hindu, in a very post-Enlightenment secular West way. There is nothing new under the sun. KJS’s confession of Unitarian faith—there are many ways to God—is Hindu, and not Christian. Reading Newbigin’s account of his 40 years in India, much of it spent in serious, ongoing dialogue with Hindu scholars about the sacred texts of their respective religions, encouraged me once more that it is possible to love truth and love people at the very same time. He did that, engaging and loving his Hindu friends, but never abandoning mere Christianity’s historic convictions about the atonement, which in my own reading is what has become the new creed of TEC. As the British poet Steve Turner says so well in his poem, “Creed,” reflecting on the belief explicit and implicit in “the culture of whatever,” that all religions are the basically the same, “They all believe in love and goodness; they only differ in matters of creation, hell, sin, God, and salvation.” Tragically, that is why TEC is now, officially, a Unitarian “church” with its necessary historic and philosophical roots in Hinduism. We do lament, even as we are full of hope for what God in Christ continues to do among his people in the world. Reading through these many comments, it is our challenge to find a way to love truth and KJS at the same time. She makes me very angry; she is a false teacher and is leading TEC into heresy—and yet I do not want to sin in my anger. Lord, have mercy.

I don’t know who is or is not a Christian or whether or not they are unitarian but one point put in his rebuttal of a US former bishop by the Archbishop of Canterbury is that there is a lack of theological rigour, dare one say biblical education - that is the only explanation I can offer for the lovely fluffy and hair-raising statements one hears from some clergy.

#46
There are a large number of attorneys for the CANA Congregations.  At least 4 of the attorneys attend CANA congregations.  Yes they are Anglicans and know Anglican polity well.

RE: “When I was there I learned to think and not just spit back everything I was told…there was a day that it was one of the great seminaries…but much has changed from what I understand…”

Nonsense—when Nashotah House was a liberal think-tank, folks learned to spit back liberalism.  Now Nashotah House teaches orthodox theology.  Liberals liked the House back then, conservatives now.  I make it a policy to check the graduation dates of Nashotah grads so that I can tell quickly and simply a guess as to where their theology is. 

My response about sexual practice as opposed to orientation drew the basic and general comment that since God forgives it doesn’t matter if someone is an unrepentant, flagrant and notorious practicer of sin.  Obviously, for those who care about what scripture has to say about the qualifications of church leadership, it matters.

But . . . Jessie then went right back to the original idea which is that sexual orientation towards the same gender is quite all right and those who have that orientation are made that way.

Once again—a sexual orientation towards the same gender is privileged by Jessie as “okay” and God-given . . . but a sexual orientation towards mutual, adult, consensual, loving siblings, or multiple people, or animals, or dead people—that’s still a “bad thing” and “not God-given.”

The hypocricy of that stance is truly breathtaking to me.  If those of homosexual attraction fought in the same way for those of siblilng attraction, or the many other attractions that various people have sexually, I could think that they were sincere in their cries for “equal” rights.  But the reality is that they want special rights.  They want rights that do not apply to those of other sexual orientations which they themselves consider to be inferior.

#55 DavidH writes:

what little I know is that there’s variety among the CANA lawyers—at least one Anglican, Catholic, Mormon.

Alas, DavidH, I think you’ve mixed up the Virginia attorneys with the Republican candidates for president ...

bb

My point in what I was saying was that is the undeniable theme throughout the NT. Love and forgiveness is the message and true gift Christ brings to us.  It is what Christ teaches in everything He says and everything He does.  He loves, He forgives, and He loves again and again…even before the cross He forgives.

Dear Jesse,
It is true that Jesus shows us how to love and how to forgive.  But that is half the story.  Jesus had, Had, HAD to die on the cross for our sins in order to reconcile us with God.  No other kind of atonement would do.  That’s the “true gift Christ brings to us.”  This is the part that progressives leave out.

In order to really understand Christ’s love for us, you have to understand the gravity of the debt that had to be paid.  That’s why it seems as though we conservative types are always talking about sin.  We recognize that because of our sinful natures, “we are not worthy so much to gather up the crumbs under thy table.”  You water down Jesus’ death on the cross, when you say it was to show us how to love and how to forgive.  Jesus had to die (and what’s even more amazing, he CHOSE to die) to SAVE us, first and foremost.

Sarah Hey… don’t think graduation dates are going to tell you much about the theology of the students at Nashotah.  As I am sure you know “The House” is attended largely by 2 or 3 diocese and although there attendance may be up from past years when they had 4 or 5 seminarians in the entire school, the Dean and administrative staff are quite aware that they will have to recruit from many other dioceses if they are to survive long term (and the “other” dioceses don’t seem to be responding).  They continue to sell off their prime land along the lake, and the last of the lake front is now being put up for sale where ultimately more mega mansions will be built that will literally surround the Nashotah campus.  Nashotah House is in deep financial trouble, and they are quite aware that they need to get their head in the game if they are to survive.  The current faculty is made up of two full time and one part time professors who are not Episcopal and 4 full time and one ½ time professors who are Episcopal…the last of the true orthodox professors who had been teaching at “The House” for the last 20+ years just resigned…they are not attracting the quality teaching staff they once did, and they are not in large attracting students.  Nashotah almost closed its doors several years ago because of their stand on WO (as well as the sex scandal that occurred)…so if they survive don’t be so sure your assumptions about graduation dates and orthodox theology are going to hold true…if they can’t attract a variety of seminarians who don’t all hold orthodox beliefs they will be closing their doors, or at the very least become a very small seminary that will look much different than we once knew it to be.
So Sarah let me ask you something…I know nothing about you so lets assume for the sake of my question that you are straight, married, and have 2 children in their teens…lets say junior and seniors in high school.  Your daughter who is a senior is a caring, loving young adult who is nice looking, does very well in school, and has been involved in the church since she was old enough to do so.  She decides to get her   undergraduate degree with hopes of going onto seminary to become a priest…8 years later she is ordained to the priesthood and 10 years following her ordination she is nominated for bishop.  Her ministry has touched the lives of many and her accomplishments thus far both nationally and internationally surpass most clergy who have worked there entire lives in the church.  (OK…so you know where this is going but stick with me here a moment)  One day she calls you and wants to meet with you for lunch…she tells you she has had a partner for the last 15 years who she loves deeply and who she cannot imagine life without.  She tells you how difficult it has been for her all of her life to not be able to share this part of her life with you because she knows your feelings about same sex relationships.  She tells you that she loves you and never wanted to hurt you and had therefore kept this part of her life from you.  The parish she ministers in is aware of her partner and for the most part they have been very open and supportive.
You respond to your daughter with the above comments you just made.  You tell her she must repent and ask for forgiveness from God…she must terminate her relationship with her partner…because of her sexual orientation she does not have equal rights in the eyes of God unless she repents and leaves behind the women she has loved and shared a life with.  Your daughter tries to make you understand that this was not a choice…she did not want to feel attracted to women…she wanted a “normal” life like everyone else, she has she wanted children and the same things every person grows up wanting…but it was not that way for her. She tells you of the depression and pain she has experienced throughout life as a result of her sexuality.  You compare her sexuality to that of people who have sex with animals, dead people (and all of the other scenarios you came up with).  You explain to her (as you did above) that the same rights within the church do not apply to her or anyone else because of her sexual orientation and that she should consider herself to be inferior unless she takes action to control her sexual desires.  Your daughter tells you she is confident that she has been called by God to Holy Orders, and also to her relationship with her partner.  You Stand Firm in your feelings and response to her regarding her life choices and because she loves and trusts you, and because what you think about her matters so much to her, she ultimately resigns from her parish, renounces orders, terminates her relationship with her life partner, asks and receives God’s forgiveness…and then comes back to you and asks if she is worthy of God’s love and your acceptance? 
To take it a step further…and I am not be melodramatic…she falls into a deep depression over the next 6 months and puts a gun to her head…the suicide note reads…Mom and Dad…I am so sorry for how I turned out, I only hope someday you will forgive me for how I turned out, and I pray with my last breath that God will forgive me…I loved my ministry and I loved my partner and I cannot go on in life without them.
The end of this story really happened to the client of a friend of mine (my friend was a psychologist who had counseled the women for 7 years prior to her death).  And yes, she was someone’s daughter…and they could not accept her sinful lifestyle…the daughter however was not a priest but a pastor in another denomination.

RE: “Sarah Hey… don’t think graduation dates are going to tell you much about the theology of the students at Nashotah.”

They tell a lot, Jessie—which has been confirmed by my careful investigation.  As you said, you don’t like what the House has become—and I do.  ; > )

Jessie,
Your argument is not valid—it’s called an “either-or” fallacy.  Even my 15 year old son recognized it—we’re studying logic now as part of our curriculum.
Jane, Edwin’s wife

RE: “I know nothing about you . . . “

Indeed.  ; > )

RE: “She decides to get her undergraduate degree with hopes of going onto seminary to become a priest…”

Oh dear . . . I would have to explain to her that I didn’t know how she missed it, but I am opposed to WO.  ; > )

The rest of your example is rather silly.

I would treat my daughter exactly as my parents have treated me when they don’t like what I do on occasion which is, simply, make crystal clear their own beliefs about my behavior, love and support me, and move on.

If I had a daughter who engaged in same-sex behavior, I would continue to love her, while making crystal clear my opinions about her behavior.  Of course . . . I would do the same thing with a son who was an alcoholic.  Or a daughter who engaged in an open marriage.  Or a son who was a drug addict.  Or a daughter who decided to be a stripper.

RE: “. . . because of her sexual orientation she does not have equal rights in the eyes of God . . . “

No idea what you mean by “equal rights in the eyes of God”—God doesn’t engage in “equal rights” with anybody, so it’s a moot point.

RE: ” . . . she did not want to feel attracted to women…she wanted a “normal” life like everyone else” . . .

Right—nobody really “wants” to be tempted to sin.  I certainly don’t.  And I’m tempted [and fail] all the time.

RE: “You compare her sexuality to that of people who have sex with animals, dead people (and all of the other scenarios you came up with).”

Yep—as I would with my daughter engaged in the open marriage.  Sexual sin is sexual sin.  If a son is engaged in sex outside of marriage—he has a sexual orientation and his acting out that orientation is sinful.  If a daughter decides to engage in polyamory, she has a sexual orientation and her acting out that orientation is sinful.

RE: “You explain to her (as you did above) that the same rights within the church do not apply to her or anyone else because of her sexual orientation and that she should consider herself to be inferior unless she takes action to control her sexual desires. . . “

Still have no idea what you mean by “the same rights.”  And yes—the “consider herself to be inferior” is a silly melodrama.  All sinner are simply sinners—we are all “inferior” to God.  Those who engage in flagrant and notorious unrepentant sin are not to be leaders in the church—and that includes those in open marriages, those in polyamorous marriages, those married to dead people, and those who are engaged in same-gender sexual relationships.  All such sins are “inferior.”  Of course, there are many other non-sexual flagrant, notorious sins which also preclude church leadership.

RE: “. . . and because what you think about her matters so much to her, she ultimately resigns from her parish, renounces orders, terminates her relationship with her life partner . . . “

Hopefully I’ll never raise a daughter who makes adult decisions based on her parents’ opinions.  Hopefully I’ll raise a daughter who makes decisions based on scripture and the Lordship of Christ over her life.  And if her parents do not agree, then please review my statement above about how parents and adult children disagree and love one another.

My parents certainly raised me to carefully consider scripture and the rulership of Christ over my life.  And where we have disagreed—sometimes quite fiercely—that is how we have responded to one another.

For the record, I also disagree with my parents about several important issues.  And I let them know that, . . . and I love them too.

It’s pretty simple, Jessie—not at all complicated, although it is quite hard.

Wow…so life is just black and white…I used to think that way too…then I grew up…saw that things are seldom black and white Sarah..and when you can’t think outside the box, when and if you relate to others, you find yourself in the company of only those who affirm you and build you up…but if that is what you are needing here so be it.  I said yesterday that I had respect for your thoughts and what you write here…you seem a bit off today…knee jerk reactions.  When someone asks you to THINK about something that you have no experence with it often requires more than a knee jerk response.  I really did expect more from you than the clever words you so often entertain us with.

So Sarah let me ask you something…I know nothing about you so lets assume for the sake of my question that you are straight, married, and have 2 children in their teens

Jessie: Is this an excerpt from your screenplay for a Lifetime movie?

Interesting that your only response now is not to address the argument but simply now to castigate the age of the commenter, Jessie. 

You sound quite eerily familiar to a former female commenter here who did precisely the same thing whenever irked with my responses!  ; > )

You will not be surprised to learn that it is a matter of some indifference to me as to what your expectations were of me or what your thoughts are of me.  It is unimportant to me as to whether I impress you.

piedmont…yes, and the movie ends with Sarah coming out of the closet and all the homophobic friends she has acquired along the way freaking out…God forgive me. 
I really need to get some real work done…later guys

But on the other hand . . .

When do I get to find all that “affirmation” and when do I get to hear all of those revisionist commenters “build me up” . . . ???

If I were to only be “in the company of only those who affirm you and build you up” . . . that would mean that all the revisionists would have to cease commenting here, and furthermore a whole bunch of conservatives who haven’t yet started “building me up” would have to stop too.

When do I get to enjoy that, now that I’m only thinking inside the box???  ; > )

I’m waiting for that “company” to arrive and begin posting here, so that I can enjoy the building up and affirmation that is sure to arrive soon.

RE: “and the movie ends with Sarah coming out of the closet and all the homophobic friends she has acquired along the way freaking out…”

Heh.

Yes jessie—things really are just black & white.

The only time they appear grey is when they are out of focus, obscured by something else, or just too distant to see clearly.

Don’t embrace the gray—work to remove the fog.

Wow…you are sounding paranoid with whatever you meant about my sounding like another female who did not agree with you…but as I said you sound a bit off today…and your most recent post????...don’t follow you but will check back sometime to read whatever you are talking about…this has truly been fun…but I really need to get my real work done.

Wow—Jessie is sounding irked!  ; > )  Toodles to you—it’s been pretty standard for me, although always enjoyable and light.

Back to my friends and family for the rest of the commenters here . . . I am confident that, contrary to the wishes and needs of Jessie in order to attempt to illustrate her point . . . that were I to exhibit further or rather new sinful behavior beyond what I have already exhibited, that my friends would love me and accept me, while also being clear about their disagreement with my behavior and their beliefs.  Same with my family.

After all . . . that’s what they’ve done in the past, and I have no reason to think that they would suddenly change.

Interesting—again—that in an effort to illustrate a point that in fact is false, that Jessie now has to believe ugly things about friends and how they respond to sinful behavior, as well as castigate my youth.

But the real issue is . . . I don’t agree with Jessie about same-sex relations.  I believe them to be sinful, along with a whole host of other sinful behaviors.  And Jessie does not.

That’s the issue that started the exchange.

. . . But hey—where’s all that affirmation and building me up now that I’m thinking in a box?

Greg?  Matt, Jackie?  Where is it? 

When does it begin???  ; > )

I don’t know, Sarah.  With her melodramatic “your daughter was this close to being selected as the next Pope, and then you made her kill herself”, she almost sounds like Lisa Fox or the Swan of Newark.

Going to bat for Sarah (who, God knows, doesn’t need my help)

and when you can’t think outside the box…

my opinion of Jessie’s problem - thinking outside The Book

you seem a bit off today…knee jerk reactions

Jessie, did you even read Sarah’s response?  It was a point-by-point reasoned response to your melodramatic, hankie-clutching worst-case scenario.  Go back and look again. It is [75] - in case you missed it.
And I LOVE the fact that you don’t think of Bob Munday, Doug McGlynn and Arnie Klukas as “quality teaching staff” - the giggles just never stop!

I understand from a seminarian we sent to Nashota House that it was doing very well. I’ve not heard anything about selling of prime property, etc., is this true?

Also, all this talk of sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll lifestyles is titillating, and exciting. Can you add a balding, middle aged, clergyman into the mix (maybe replacing the dead lover)? please don’t stop with the melodrama! WAAAHHHHOOOO!

I have an idea.  I’d be willing, if we could get some others more knowledgeable than me as well, to form a holding company here in Fairfax to negotiate for the CANA properties; we could start with Truro.  I’m Catholic, so they’d never suspect…

When they ask why we want the property we could tell them we want to build a , uhm, let me see, a STARBUCKS!  Yeah, that’s it, a Starbucks.  And, a nightclub, yeah, that’s the ticket, a Starbucks and a nightclub.  No, wait, a big lunch place.  Yeah, that’s better.  The courthouse addition will be open soon, and there needs to be something on the north side of the courthouse for people who don’t like Red, Hot and Blue.

Yeah, a diner and a Starbucks.  That’s what we’d tell them.

What, Anglicans?  No, there - are - no - Anglicans - here.  Just a holding company.  Yeah, just a company…  Just a bunch of people looking to make money.  That’s acceptable, isn’t it?

I think we could do that three or four times before they caught on. 

But, that’s still paying for property you already own, I know.  Just an attempt at levity.

I loved Nashotah House…and although Arnie was not teaching when I was there he and Carol are the best of the best as far as I am concerned…they have been dear friends for years.  Munday is the Dean he does not teach.  I am concerned for Nashotah… if you read what I wrote you will see that.  And dear Sarah the point of the melodramatic question (and yes, I did indeed refer to it myself as melodramatic…I think we all get it was meant to be??? Or no…perhaps everyone missed it???) didn’t know if you were a parent or not…not irked, said I was having fun but needed to get some real work done.

Wow…so life is just black and white…I used to think that way too…then I grew up...saw that things are seldom black and white Sarah..and when you can’t think outside the box, when and if you relate to others, you find yourself in the company of only those who affirm you and build you up…but if that is what you are needing here so be it. ... When someone asks you to THINK about something that you have no experence with it often requires more than a knee jerk response.  I really did expect more from you than the clever words you so often entertain us with.

Ah, the well-reasoned analysis and courtesy of the nihilist crowd.  They’re going to do so well running PGCCUSA with all the mainstream Christians ejected from their midst, don’t you think?  I mean, who won’t run to a church where the pastor has this “you’re all idiots” attitude?

Jessie, how do you know what you know about Jesus?  It seems to me that you simply latch onto a part of his teaching that appeals to you, and interpret everything else in line with that particular thing—and if some other part of his teaching, or of the Bible doesn’t line up with your key principle, it is obviously wrong and should be ignored.

We reasserters do not do “cut and paste” interpretation.  We look at the whole of Scripture, seeking to have Scripture interpret Scripture, with the basic assumption that Scripture is a product of God’s self-revealing love and compassion.  If Jesus says that Scripture cannot be broken, if he trusts Scripture implicitly—then we will agree with him.  He does say that, and we do seek to have the same view of the Bible that he does.

And Jesus speaks more of hell than any other person in the Bible—mostly warning people to avoid it by repenting of sin and trusting him.

Have you read even an article of Robert Gagnon’s works?  He shows that Jesus opposed any physical sexual expression outside of heterosexual marriage.  He is certainly no “cut and paste” exegete.  Nobody has refuted him yet, and few proponents of the acceptability of same-sex sexual relationships even try to do so.

#88 Paul B.  I think the holding company could negotiate for all the properties at once, but more importantly it could negotiate with the Diocese for the property they are going to sell to pay the legal fees and then make those into more Anglican Churches.

Jessie opined . . .

“Love and forgiveness is the message and true gift Christ brings to us.  It is what Christ teaches in everything He says and everything He does.”

Oh man, He was just lovin’ on those money-changers, wasn’t He?  And that whole ”...I come with a sword” thing: is that workin’ out for you in that “Jesus is all love all the time” paradigm? And exactly what love is He bringing us when He tells us to head for the hills and not look back? When He says he has come to set father against saon, and mother against daughter?  Can you run that through your love machine?

Or am I thinking too much inside the Book—err I mean “box.?”

And then there’s that “brood of vipers” and “whited sepulchres” that were the love-objects of Jesus.  And how about the “get thee behind me Satan” stuff to Peter—one of the chosen?  Plenty more examples inside the Book.

OK “guys” I am back and ready for more fun!  And this is pretty fun for me…a diversion.  As I read your posts….and I have been reading for the last year without ever commenting…I have to say you are all a pretty sad bunch.  Lets seeeeeeeee…oh yea that’s right Christ NEVER talked about love, forgiveness, or any of those Pollyanna type “concepts” I speak of…only repentance and damnation right?  I’m sorry but what side of the cross are you coming from?  Lets just start with a basic assumption…put all the judgmental crap aside for the moment and I will assume if you tell me you are a Christian I can believe that, and if I tell you I am a Christian I will invite you to do the same. Forgive me if this is all too basic but I just need to get a handle on where there is any common ground here. 
Can we agree that Christ died for our sins and for the sins of the world?
Did he not say on the cross “forgive them father for they know not what they do?
Are we not taught in seminary that Christ is the “new Adam” whereas Adam brings sin into the world Christ takes our sin away?
If anyone still holds to the belief that we are born into the world with original sin and the belief that we are all sinners unless we confess our sins and ask for forgiveness do you then hold the belief that a new born baby, or an adult who has not been baptized will go to hell if they die?
Is it not possible when we look at the “sides” of this argument that has torn our church apart that one side is wrong and one side is right?  And if that is true that upon death we are all holding to our own truth…do you really think one “side” will be burning in hell and the other side will go up waving?

If someone who speaks for the majority could tell me where you all stand on this it would give me some idea of where or if there is common ground here…

#93 AnglicanXn….I guess this conversation has been going on for a day or so, so I will say again…I have an M Div (Nashotah House) and am a parish priest.  I think in general when I have been addressing an issue or a question here I tend to go to the part of the Bible that relates to the issue and draw from that…I assume you are not asking me why I am not doing a full exegesis on any given topic that happens to pop up?  It is my understanding that as Anglicans or Episcopalians we interpret Scripture through reason and tradition…seeking to have Scripture interpret Scripture(as you said you do) leaves much room for error.  Yes Scripture (as you said) is a product of God’s self revealing love and compassion…but the Bible was written by man…translated by man….interrupted by man during translation…some of the Bible was written during different times in history ( and I could go on and on with how the Bible was pulled together)… and without taking all of this into account (using reason) it would very difficult to even begin to use the Bible as a daily guide for our lives.
I am very clear that you, and perhaps the vast majority of the people on this site feel more comfortable in your own spirituality focusing on repentance and hell…quite frankly if you tell me Christ talks more about hell than any other “person” I believe you.  What I focus on and what I encourage others to focus on is God’s forgiveness through Christ’s action for us on the cross.  That is never to say live life as one big party and know you are forgiven in the end.  It is to say that when much is given much is expected.  With all of the gifts of this life and the opportunities that we have because of the cross there is much work to do.  I choose to focus on forgiveness because I was born forgiven…and for that I am eternally grateful.  How many times does Christ tell us to forgive??? (70X7) Never more than He has forgiven I assure you. 
I think we get to the same place in the end regardless of what side of the cross we focus on…I have found in my years of ministry that it is much harder for people to forgive themselves for what they need God’s forgiveness for…so for me it helps to speak of God’s love and forgiveness and bring people into relationship with Christ that way…and I have found that they are much more willing to then forgive others when they are in relationship with Christ again.  I believe it matters little to God how we get there, only that we do.
You said you are opposed to physical sexual expression outside of marriage…does this mean that if the marriage of homosexuals and lesbians were legalized you would be alright with the issue theologically?  (And no I am not stupid so I will say it before someone else does…yes, yes, yes, I know your answer.) 

One more question to the community at large…with all of the cute remakes you all posted why didn’t someone respond to my idea of genocide?  Just wondering????

Jessie…

I have to say you are all a pretty sad bunch. 

cute

oh yea that’s right Christ NEVER talked about love, forgiveness, or any of those Pollyanna type “concepts” 

I don’t recall anyone here making that claim. I think it would be far better if you engaged with what people are actually saying, not your blinkered version of what they say. Discussion works out so much better than way.

Instead, in this comment you’ve managed in one breath to demonstrate:
1. Your disdain for those you engage with.
2. Your inability or unwillingness to actually read what they write.

Jessie - when you first arrive here everyone looks the same and perhaps may sound the same.  If you hang around you will find that commenters come in a huge variety, not even necessarily Episcopalian or even Anglican.  They come with a variety of interests - Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Baptists, Charismatics, Evangelicals, Anglo Catholics; not all are friendly although most are.  So no need to be defensive - hang around and the grey monochrome may become more colourful.

Enjoy

jessie,
I actually had to keep a record of the major commenters and some of their opinions for a while. There are a lot of interesting people commenting here.

jessie #95

I have found in my years of ministry that it is much harder for people to forgive themselves for what they need God’s forgiveness for…so for me it helps to speak of God’s love and forgiveness and bring people into relationship with Christ that way

How do you (or how do you consul others to) determine what one needs God’s forgiveness for? Can I just decide that what I’m doing isn’t that bad?  Or do I not concern myself with if my actions are sinful or not?

As far as interpreting scripture leading to error, homosexual acts are always condemned and never even hinted as being good.  If something the Bible is this clear and consistent on cannot be trusted, what part of it can be trusted?

I believe it will not be many years before there is scientific proof (and we are so close right now) that there is not a choice for people who are homosexual…it is how God made them.  It has been so since the beginning of time.

And what if you are wrong Jessie? What if science proves that homosexual behavior is a choice? What then? Will you work to unwind 40 years of damage caused by a false theology? Say oops, my bad?

Jessie, # 95, I have never been to seminary so please forgive me if I am surprised to read the following: “Are we not taught in seminary that Christ is the “new Adam” whereas Adam brings sin into the world Christ takes our sin away?”.
Is this really what they teach in seminary?

Jessie said:  “If anyone still holds to the belief that we are born into the world with original sin and the belief that we are all sinners unless we confess our sins and ask for forgiveness do you then hold the belief that a new born baby, or an adult who has not been baptized will go to hell if they die?
Is it not possible when we look at the “sides” of this argument that has torn our church apart that one side is wrong and one side is right?  And if that is true that upon death we are all holding to our own truth…do you really think one “side” will be burning in hell and the other side will go up waving?”

Yep, I still believe in original sin.  No reason not to.  Without original sin, the rest of Christian theology sorta breaks apart, doesn’t it?  You end up following Palagius.

I believe that God said that he desired all people be saved.  I do believe there is a hell.  I believe that God has given us all of the ‘tools’ to get to heaven and stay out of the hot place.  I believe that some people who think that they are holy are going to get a rude shock when they meet Jesus. 

Jessie, God is perfect love, and perfect justice.  Knowing that, how would answer your accusations above?

Unfortunately we have too much proof of original sin, how else do you explain the Holocaust, the Killing fields, How do you explain man’s inhumanity to man? We have all sinned and we pray to be redeemed and transformed by our Savior Jesus Christ who laid down his life for our sins.

Jessie says:

I believe it will not be many years before there is scientific proof (and we are so close right now) that there is not a choice for people who are homosexual…it is how God made them.  It has been so since the beginning of time.

If we find genetic factors for people with inclinations to theft, lying or adultery, would you also say they do not have a choice but to act out their genetic inclinations?
Would you then say we should recognize that God made them that way and bless their behavior in church?

Well, I believe it will not be many years before there is scientific proof (and we are so close right now) that I have a genetic disposition to pride, envy, anger, lust, greed, gluttony & sloth. It has been so from the time of my birth.

The issue is NOT genetics. It is obedience. No matter what my genetics, I must obey God to see the Kingdom.

I can’t believe y’all are wasting your time such specious “reasoning” as Jessie’s. Couldn’t the commenatrix put us out of our misery by declaring her ramblings off-topic?

104, 105, 106 AMEN!!!....we all have things that we are genetically linked to…perhaps so that we can be obedient

Would you call this a ‘Jessie hijack’ of a thread?

Jessie said, in #95

I am very clear that you, and perhaps the vast majority of the people on this site feel more comfortable in your own spirituality focusing on repentance and hell…quite frankly if you tell me Christ talks more about hell than any other “person” I believe you.  What I focus on and what I encourage others to focus on is God’s forgiveness through Christ’s action for us on the cross.

We do not focus on repentance and hell.  We focus on love and forgiveness—the enormous love and grace of God who reached out to us in mercy through the shed blood of Christ on the cross.  As Paul said in Rom. 5:8, “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”

The thing is many who are “reappraisers” talk about love and forgiveness, but seem to forget the reality of sin—the sinfulness of sin—and seem to regard it as a relatively minor thing, an absent minded forgetfulness of what we should do, a trifling oversight of some almost arbitrary rule.  (Of course, most reappraisers do have a few sins which are absolutely horrid—such as failing to be “inclusive,” or violating diocesan boundaries…)  Reappraisers are known to speak of “original blessing” rather than original sin.

We do not wish to focus on sin, repentance, and judgment.  But the reality is that sin is not a minor thing.  Sin is not merely violating some rule—it is REBELLION against the the Holy God who created us and is our rightful King.  No one will fully appreciate the fullness of God’s mercy and love unless she or he recognized the depth of sin in which he or she lives apart from the mercy of God.

I interpret the Bible as a Christian, a “mere Christian.”  And that is what the Church of England sought to do in its beginning.  As Article XX says, we cannot interpret the Bible in such a way that one passage defies another; we have to interpret the whole.

(By the way—I have been parish ministry for 25 years, and I have an MA in Theology from an non-denominational seminary and an MDiv from VTS.)

Jessie;  Please accept that I’m not trying to be smug or offend you in any way, and I, ... I think maybe as you do, ... accept those who are in ministry in the church assuming that their education and experience places them in some authority, BUT before you go too far defending these folk, like +KJS and +VGR, particularly if others find them controversial, examine their lives, sermons, persons, writings, supporters, detractors, etc. You may say we’re not to judge based on the N.T., but as an old pastor of mine said , “we need to be fruit inspectors.”  This requires a working knowledge of scripture, and the ‘meat’ of the word if you will, and some organization and familiarity of at least some systematic theology. I encourage you in both. My opinion of +KJS and +VGR is different than yours, I’ve sat with both a number of times, heard several sermons of each, read and read, followed the news, watched +VGR in a Gay Pride Parade, etc… If you avail yourself of the same you may come to a different conclusion. Both are doing great harm to the witnness of the church.

Puh-leeze….

I had this weird compulsion to read this thread all the way through to the end to see if Jessie ever learned anything….
It was sort of like one of those “Disaster in Real Life” shows….You’re so hoping it all turns out in the end.

But this time it didn’t.  The poor misguided person never did find her way out of the icy crevasse…
She’s still down there in the cold dark chasm, yelling and screaming, but unable to take hold of the lifeline…..
So sad that she couldn’t see what was being offered… the warm thermos, the extra jackets, the belaying equipment, the sunshine at the top…

And when SF wins its next Blog of the Year award, could you puh-leeze give a nod to Robroy for all of his many great posts….and include a special mention of his #107 above….

Jessie, Is it possible that you have too much faith in Science and too little faith in our religion. 
Science has not proved a genetic link to homosexuality and if it does the pro-abortion crowd who also have faith in the use of Science to provide abortions will have made it possible for a woman to abort her child if she finds out that her child will be born a homosexual, this is the ultimate stigmatization. 
Science has failed to cure HIV/AIDS, in fact the overuse of antibiotics has produced more virulent strains of AIDS. I know you don’t want to hear this but those who acquire this disease face much pain and suffering, this is why we do not want our children to get caught up in practices that could cause them to acquire this and other venereal diseases. 
Scripture is more reliable than science, the Bible warns us about these practices, it is a compassionate warning that should be taken seriously because it will prevent suffering.

One last thing before I SCREAM! ... I just reread this thread and found I missed some earlier posts, I must’ve hit page down when I though I was using cursor down…. Jessie, and for all the Jessie types out there…. IT’S NOT ABOUT US, OR OUR THOUGHTS, OR our perception of societal justice, OR societal wrongs, OR how we feel,.... IT’S ABOUT GOD, ABOUT JESUS, about His Word, His character, His justice…. I’m so tired of folks saying but;  ‘I think,’ ‘I can’t believe this,’ ‘God wouldn’t,’ etc… ACCEPT IT OR NOT (at your risk) ..... but if you claim Christ, your duty by scripture is to read and study… (I know that’s a new concept to most of us) HIS Word and find out what HE wants. IT’S NOT ABOUT YOU/US!!!! Whew…..... now I can get to bed!

‘Tis a phrase that bears repeating, learned by me here at SF several years ago…

...Do not feed the trolls…

and another I love so well:
Do not try and teach a pig to sing—
it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

Finally, and most importantly:
Matthew 7:6
“Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.

Back on topic…

sjengelhardt

DaveB in VT…I appreciate so much the way in which you write and speak of your beliefs…and there were a few others who have been well thought out and not on the attack… or so high on a pedestal they can’t see down to where I live.  I learn much from people like you Dave, and regardless of where I/we are on these issues you do a nice job explaining your beliefs without attacking mine. This does encourage possitive dialogue and a willingness to explore what is being said, as opposed to the attack that goes on here without ever answering a question or being willing to enter into true dialogue.  I can’t possibly comment on all of this from today…honestly I am with the guy who asked “is this still going on?”  and I still have miles to go before I sleep.  Peace all:)

Dear Jessie
That is a tragic story you have told us. But clearly as you appeal to science, you must then use scientific reason to justify your conclusion.
You have presented the story in such a way that the root cause is the parents rejection of the daughters homosexuality. You have assumed this is what has caused the suicide.

You have taken the stance that homosexuality is hardwired and unchangable. Philosopher Karl Popper said, “No amount of observations of white swans can allow the inference that all swans are white, but the observation of a single black swan is sufficient to refute that conclusion.” So if we have an one observance that homosexual orientation is changable then your theory is refuted. And yes we have many.

Now this goes against psychology. But is psychology science? Can psychology make testable predictions? Can these tests lead to clear outcomes that can verify or refute this theory? In the vast majority of cases it cannot. Psychology on the whole cannot reliably distinguish between causes and effects. So what we have is not science, but rather observations that have been given meaning without testability. That is why through political pressure (and not scientific evidence) APA has removed homosexuality from the list of disorders (even though we have Sibling Rivalry Disorder and Mathematics Disorder now listed). 

Psychology for the most part believes that it is this stance against homosexuality that leads to increased mental disorders and suicides. Unfortuanately no studies have been conducted to verify this opinion. Though no specific studies have been performed, we do see that despite increased acceptance, especially in european countries, there appears to be no reduction. Again this theory to which you have appealed is not fact, and nothing more then opinion.

It is possible that the homosexual orientation (and most testable science involved is finding that homosexuality is not hard wired) itself is the root cause for the prevelance of mental disorders. The fact that 7 years of therapy didn’t solve the problem could be the result of treating the symptom and not the cause. My own experience with my wifes depression was that psychology could not distinguish between cause and effects and that the depression progressed. My wife was cured, not by treating the symtom (depression) but treating the cause. Yes that required leaving psycholical treatment, but to continue would certainly have resulted in my wifes death. Psychology by it’s nature cannot distinguish between the two.

The acceptance of homosexuality is not an act of love, unless we feel that telling an alcoholic to keep drinking (and all the physical and psychological ramifications involved, including a reduced life expectancy) is love. Homosexuals face a severely decreased life expectancy, are more likely to suffer from mental and physical illness, and yet the APA has determined to list “spelling disorder” (as far as i am aware there are no life expectancy issues involved) and delist homosexuality. Certainly a stretch of logic.

To appeal to science means to be able to assign to that science the authority it deserves, not what we want it to deserve. Not all science is equal. Science means knowledge, but we must distinguish the extent of that knowledge.

Nice explanation, RickP.  Thoughtful, logical, and well-written.
Thanks,
Pat Kashtock

Further Betty See’s comment, consider this article from yesterday’s San Francisco Chronicle: <a >S.F. gay community an epicenter for new strain of virulent staph</a>.
This disease has has not yet been officially declared a “sexually transmitted disease”. It can happen to people engaging in “safe sex”, i.e, using condoms, because the infections are found where skin-to-skin contact occurs during sexual activity, the buttocks and groin area.

Ok, so I haven’t read the thread in a couple of days and picked it up this morning.  Rhetoric mixed with poor logic is amusing.  I love the way Jessie dodges the issues / questions and chooses rather to spew forth, well, uh, spew.

Sarah - may I have a new thread about my cool attorney?  I’d really just love tons to have the opportunity to talk about him; gosh, gee, that’s what I am all about.  Jessie got me there - Jessie sooooo knows and gets me.  BFFs; no doubt.

I repent of my contribution; I knew nothing good would result; yet, I let my optimism and hope get in the way.  Thus is demonstrated the truth of the proverb: feed a troll, get troll poop.

20 Q. So you would refuse to allow
21 congregations to purchase the church buildings
22 they had been using, regardless of the amount of
67
1 money they wanted to pay, if they were going to
2 affiliate with another province of the Anglican
3 Communion?
4 A. That has been my position.

Later she testifies that it is okay to sell the property to a Baptist congregation or sell it for secular puposes. You just can’t be affiliated with another part of the communion. That all sounds like restraint of trade.

It is interesting tpo go back a re-watch that deposition of KJS. In the #12 when asked about jurisdiction, she stated her thoughts and understandings of jurisdiction and how she so opposed to foreign Bishops coming in the U.S. and “setting up shop” as she puts it, I wish the they would have asked her about all the mission churches TEC has set up in other jurisdictions! I guess it’s okay for KJS to do it but not another Primate!