Has the Episcopal Church really been “Falsely Accused”? Part IV

Cripes, another thread!  Matt, you are really earning those big Stand Firm paychecks now. 

OK, here is what strikes me from this installment as my initial thought.  Matt, your examples of comments from the PB elect, Bishop Chane, and Bishop Swing were (I hope) helpful to Tom in understanding why we have this particular “false accusation” toward TEC and its leadership re: the life and work of Jesus Christ. 

Tom, if you’re still there, rather than wade into the scripture portion of Matt’s post, I’d ask that you deal with the cited examples.  For example, was it reasonable for us conservatives (in light of everything that has happened) to scratch our heads when we read the interview of PB-Elect Jefferts Schori (I’m getting confused now on her name because of the various misspellings out there so sorry—you know who I’m talking about) that Matt quoted and in particular the quotation about Jesus being a vehicle to the divine?  Maybe my scholars haven’t kept me up to date on this apparently new way to describe Jesus.  What would be helpful from you and the other moderates would be a response kind of like, “You know, when I read that part, I got a little uncomfortable too so I can understand your concern.”  Of “She could have done a better job in one of her first forays into the public realm avoiding the use of language that she should have known would be problematic.”  Do you identify with either of those?

Peace.

But, of course, the really scandalous thing about Woodward’s defense is that he doesn’t deny or correct the accusation.  Instead he takes the stance: some Episcopalians believe Jesus Christ is the sole path to salvation, and some believe there are many paths to salvation.  And that’s OK! Both positions are perfectly acceptable in TEC, and in fact, so Woodward claims, the apostle Paul did not believe that Jesus Christ is the sole path to salvation, so, (Woodward goes on to say in the rest of his apology) as in so many other areas, Scripture can’t even provide us guidance.

Woodward in fact confirms the accusation, and replies (in essence) “so what?”  As Matt demonstrates, no Evangelical or Catholic Christian (let alone “classical Anglican”) would have responded “So what?”

WG said,
What would be helpful from you and the other moderates would be a response kind of like, “You know, when I read that part, I got a little uncomfortable too so I can understand your concern.”  Of (sic) “She could have done a better job in one of her first forays into the public realm avoiding the use of language that she should have known would be problematic.”  Do you identify with either of those?

WG - Tom already answered this question.  It was part of one of his answers on the Episcopal Majority thread.  This was his answer.

Lastly, your claim represents a theology of triumphalism, that after the incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection, there is no longer any need of other religions. That theology has been repudiated by nearly every major Christian denomination, including the Roman Catholic Church. The horrors visited upon innocent Jews, Muslims and others through the century from our theology of triumphalism is more than any of us could possibly comprehend—and there will not be enough time in history for us to make proper amends. It continues even in our own country. If your belief is fruit, it is bitter for others while sweet to you. It is, sadly, not bearing the kinds of fruit promised by Jesus from his disciples.

What a refreshing series of articles with simply delightful exchanges.  Despite the occaisonal rancor and lack of charity in the comments I have found so much clarity in this debate.  It has completely reinforced in my mind that TEC today is hopelessly divided between irreconcilable differences.  Bishop Duncan has it right.  My thanks to Rev Woodward for making this possible and to this StandFirm site which I stumbled on about a year ago.  Now what to do?  I’m still an Episcopalian but I’ve decided I must leave.  I’ll wait for a while to see what the ACN can work out but I won’t wait forever…

William Witt nails it in the last paragraph.  The interesting thing about reaching a conclusion with Tom Woodward is that it’s kind of like trying to grab a piece of Jello.  In the first thread, for example, Rev. Woodward ostensibly claimed to be a moderate - orthodox, even - and then went on to deny the Virgin Birth and (arguably) the bodily Resurrection.  It’s hard to respond to that when it seems self-evident, to paraphrase Mr. Witt, that no Evangelical or Catholic Christian would have responded, “Oh, sure, that’s perfectly orthodox.”  It’s one of those things where, if you don’t get it, then I can’t explain it to you: it represents two incompatible frames of reference (one of which is, parenthetically, incompatible with history).  So, he protests the accusation, then demonstrates that, at least for himself, it’s true.

The revisionist side posits a kind of everything-is-valid belief system as the true expression of historic Anglicanism.  That, however, can’t possibly be true when set against the pre-1979 Prayer Book tradition or the very hard-edged Articles of Religion, both of which indisputably represent historic Anglicanism.

On this particular subject, considering the Great Commission only, what rings false about Mrs. Schori’s, “in a box,” comment is that, as a Christian, she is still called to evangelize the world, even if her catechism allows for Jesus’ saving action to occasionally work outside the Church.  But, she doesn’t even have the strength of her faith to say that; too offensive to others, I suppose.  The inevitable result of not evangelizing - of leaving people where they are on their own, “paths to god” - interestingly, is that the church shrinks.  This is what we’ve seen, which empirically supports Matt+ and argues against Rev. Woodward.

Matt, you have addressed the subject definitively, and your article is a keeper.  Thanks for writing it.

Dr. Witt,

I intended the first part of my article about the differences within Christendom to be a refutation/correction of Fr. Tom’s claim that the Church has “always” allowed for a pluralist and exclusivist viewpoint. In fact the church has always been exclusivist. The only difference has been the question of how that exclusivity is applied to those who have yet to hear the good news.

Awesome.  For us simple pew-sitters this is the intelligence for what we already knew by faith but could never express.  I may just steal it and use it as part of my Confirmation class.  I think the kids will love it.

Amen and Amen ...

Wilkie: the kids will love it.  Do not try to entertain: challenge and challenge again.  They have their entertainments (with which you would probably be wise not to compete).  They do not have healthy, safe forums to challenge themselves or their society (forget the schools and the peers).  SO: present this “intelligence we already knew by faith but could never express” to a youth group and you will—verily—serve the Lord.  That is what would best be called orthodox work of the Gospel.

Matt,

I’m on the road—sitting in an office building in Georgia right now getting ready to get back into the car.

But thank you.

This is an article I’ll be emailing to many.  And many others will be hand mailing it.  Your work is excellent and very helpful in educating those who are moderate in the church.  I so appreciate the time you are putting into this.

Phil:

The interesting thing about reaching a conclusion with Tom Woodward is that it’s kind of like trying to grab a piece of Jello.

I have been searching for an analogy to describe what I was seeing in Tom+‘s posts.  I kept wanting to say “Don’t feed the trolls”, but that would be tacky,  so, I’ll just think it.  I reiterate an earlier post, echoing +Duncan, we have no common basis of reference, therefore it is impossible to debate our worthy opponents.  We are indeed two separate and different religions.  The reappraisers are more like Unitarian/Universalists, with liturgy.

I have thoroughly enjoyed the informative lesson from Matt and others.

The analogy I came up with today:

The church has voted that what we thought was orange all along was really red. We all agree it is red now (70% y 30% n)

If I remembered my light spectrum better i would pick two colors several shades apart.  The “new” color is the old color minus something.

Thanks for helping another formerly “playing church” cradle episcopalian better understand more of the foundation of the faith.

EJ: “...we have no comon basis of reference…U/Us w/liturgy.”  You have no idea how destructive such writings actually are.  There is a common basis, it is Good News, and you, EJ, do not own it, or the rights to it.  If you want it to be impossible to “debate our worthy opponents” (I would prefer “engage”,) you are on that track.  If you want possibilities—albeit possibilities that might be challenging—find a track which signals humility, friendliness, dare I ask for worthiness?  Otherwise your “Orthodox” righteousness works as a scare only.  Fear has been defeated.

Terebinth, the destructive part is the refusal of the non-Orthodox to refuse to engage on a Scriptural level.  Until that happens, we are truly on two separate paths and as Matt so wonderfully relayed above - it is they who have taken a new path.

Gregg, please try to put this series together.  It really needs to be in front of all Anglicans (with comments).  This is the kind of “stuff” that truly helps all of us.  Matt+ I believe that you are giving us all that you have.  Thank you and thanks to your family and parish for supporting you.

Lee,

I was thinking the exact same thing, when it was parts I & II. Then I saw part III appear, and was glad I waited. Then came part IV.

Matt, let me know you wrap it up, and I’ll put them all in one place.

P.S. - In the meantime, if you want to print these threads out or save them to your computer, you can use the “Print-friendly” or “Print-friendly w/comments” links at the bottom of the main post.

Jakie: I am addressing the so-called Orthodox.  Because others refuse to meet on valid ground is no reason to abandon those grounds.  Again: we cannot get right by being wrong.  There can be no freedom without truth.  And truth will not be bottled up and doled out by a select few, no matter what they call themselves, or how noble their intentions are.  Truth is objective, received, organic and whole.  Why shortchange it as some sort of formula?

Good writing, exposition, and thinking, Fr Matt!
That’s why I keep coming back for more.  I do not plan to read any further postings from Fr Woodward.  He has been invaluable in showing us what we are up against, but having served that purpose, his usefulness is finished.  If he remains silent, he will not be missed; if he responds, he will not be read.
I must confess to being on what you call the RC side in my understanding of salvation through Christ alone.
The possibility that some persons, outside the Christian community, unbaptized and ignorant (humanly speaking) of the Gospel might be saved through God’s “uncovenanted mercies” has been entertained by many non-Roman Catholics.  Zwingli believed in the salvation of “virtuous pagans,” a theory that had been kicking around since patristic times.  (Augustine was explicitly for it, writing “there are many sheep without, many wolves within”.)
The great Dutch Calvinist dogmatician Hermann Bavinck entertains this view, and the Westminsiter Confession of Faith opens a way for it in the Chapter on Effectual Calling, “III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth.  So also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the word.”  This seems to allow the possibility that “those far off,” e.g., the Eskimoes living in 500 B.C., might have been among the elect.  Joachim Jeremias interprets the parable of the Great Assizes in this manner, when the sheep, collected out of “all the nations,” asked in amazement, “Lord, when did we see thee?”

And we cannot get to Truth unless we stand on His Holy Word.  We are not seeking to one up anyone here - simply Stand Firm.

“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”
John 14:5-7

Laurence, I don’t think Tom Woodward+ will be posting anything here to refute, given his silence here so far on Part IV and his lack of any comments after his first one on Part III.  I haven’t even seen him posting further comments on “Falsely Accused” on Episcopal Majority or the same article on his own blog, Turning the World Upside Down.  When I posted comments refuting his seemingly wilful misinterpretation of Romans chs. 9-11 on EM, he never addressed my points.  Just changed the subject, typical revisionist jello sliding down the wall.  Fr. Rick Harris O. P. deftly sliced up his assertion that proclaiming Jesus as the only way to salvation led to the Holocast, and no answer from Tom+.

Matt,

To you and to my other friends, I am “Bill.”  I am only Dr. Witt to those who insist that the orthodox are ignorant fundamentalists who do not know how to read.  As I said to Sarah on another post, my wife even wears shoes.

I’m not sure if you think I’m disagreeing with you here.  I’m not. I wouldn’t be spending so much time—time I should probably spend elsewhere—commenting to your series of posts if I didn’t think you were right on target.  Carry on!  My comment about “That’s okay!” was summmarizing Woodward’s position, not commenting favoably on it.

Dr. Witt,

I intended the first part of my article about the differences within Christendom to be a refutation/correction of Fr. Tom’s claim that the Church has “always” allowed for a pluralist and exclusivist viewpoint.

Tom,

I for one hope you will continue to post your comments here at Stand Firm not only because I seem to have lost the link to your blog but also because I firmly believe that we all (my fellow conservative brothers and sisters in Christ included) will continue to benefit from this conversation.  I guess I disagree with those here who might liken continued conversation to the great line from Bull Durham—“talking to you is like talking to a fungo!”

If I may, I think we could all benefit from a clarification of an issue that this recent thread has brought up.  Your first alleged false accusation is that the conservatives have taken delight in claiming that TEC and its leadership believe the following:

“1. Jesus is only one of many paths to God instead of the Only Way (John 14:6).”

The confusion that has arisen is over just what you are calling a “false accusation.”  For instance, as I read your article, I had thought the false accusation was that we conservatives had falsely accused TEC of believing the point quoted above.  To which I had been asking the follow up questions, “Where do you think we conservatives came up with that notion?”  I think this particular conversation is helpful and needs to be continued.  It is my hope that we can reach some sort of agreement that our side’s “mistaken” belief was reasonable and justified and as a result of that your side will acknowledge that it needs to do a better job with its pronouncements and language (and speak out louder against the extremists on the left). 

But as I read Matt’s Part IV piece and others comments here (and then re-read your article and responses), I am starting to wonder if the “false” part of this discussion isn’t so much the alleged allegation but that the underlying thought behind the allegation is “false.”

OK let me try to explain that better.  What exactly is your point here?  Is it that we on the conservative side are “false” in accusing TEC of embracing this idea that Jesus is only one of many paths to the divine (your response being, “Hey, TEC believes Jesus is the only way, heck, we say as much every Sunday in our liturgy!”)

OR are you saying that the conservative side is “false” in believing that Jesus is the only way to the divine (your response being the “so what” response mentioned above, “Hey, if you are going make accusations about us, at least come up with legitimate accusations, you dumb bunch of ninnies!”  I fear that if this latter explanation is your position, then we might just be better off talking to a fungo.

It reminds me of the conversation at my parish right after GC 2003 where after a couple of meetings we were still struggling with figuring out how to proceed since the “sides” appeared so far apart.  I suggested that we try to start with some common ground and then move forward to determine where our paths started diverging.  OK, said the group, let’s start at common ground.  So I said, “OK let’s start with the fundamental Christian proclamation that Jesus Christ is Lord, a real Nicene Creed bedrock belief.”

Hands immediately went up, Well, that’s not gonna work because it all depends on what you mean by “Lord.” 

Ugh.  Now moving that conversation did take a ton of effort (in fact it ultimately failed).  I’m not saying it is impossible but it ain’t something we’re gonna be able to work out in a blog.  Does that make sense?

Thanks, Father Matt.

I really like your writing.

I think you speak the truth in love.

DoW

Dear Bill Witt,

Thanks for all that you contribute to this site. Knowing that you are reading and commenting adds a great deal of comfort in debates like this. Things I need to research you pull out of your memory. Thank you for everything.

A great piece, but can the spelling boo-boos be corrected?

“eschelon” should be “echelon”.

There may be others.

There is a common basis, it is Good News, and you, EJ, do not own it, or the rights to it.

I do not claim to own anything but my own intellect, and that faith which is the gift of God’s grace, and my own pitiful efforts to frequent repentance and seeking of forgiveness.  I did not mean to imply that we should cease the search for reconciliation.  What I hope to convey is that there seems to be a great divergence in what we accept as basic truth.  There must be some commonality in our basis of belief, e.g. John 14:6, John 3:16, the “5 fundamentals”, the three creeds, the (39) Articles of Faith.  Phil aptly characterized Tom+ Woodward’s postings as trying to grasp jello; my impression is more like trying to nail it to a wall.  When engaging our worthy opponents, I personally expect that there will be intellectual honesty and application of the rules of logic.  So much of what I have read from that quarter is a mixture of intellectual vapidity and pos-modern deconstructionism.  Words mean things.  We should at least have a common basis in the definition of words and concepts if we are to engage in any kind of productive discussion, otherwise we have what Dr. Eric Berne called “crossed transactions”. (c.f. “Games People Play” and I’m OK, You’re OK”)  Sometimes it becomes apparent that the party with whom one is engaging has created a new set of rules and definitions, and it rapidly becomes obvious that there is no true engagement, at least the way I was taught to debate.  Rather than raise my blood pressure and waste time, which in my case is better spent preparing for comps and working on my dissertation, it is more productive to disengage and bless the “other”.  I am by nature conciliatory, but sometimes other approaches are more appropriate and effective. 
KTF,

Charles

“Things I need to research you pull out of your memory.”

Matt, I do not claim to be a great theologian.  I do read widely, and I have been blessed with an above average memory.  If I’ve read it at some time or another, I can usually remember where, and, fortunately, can pull the book off my shelf, and find the reference.

At the same time, and I’m not bragging, debating with reappraisers is too often just shooting fish in a barrel.  Since the arguments are after the fact attempts to justify a pre-determined policy, they’re often not very well thought out.  Although trained to do theology by mostly reappraising Roman Catholics, that is not how I was taught that theology should be done.

Randy,

Thanks, I’m getting to it slowly. I am rather swamped with parish work today and will likely be so tomorrow as well. Generally these things are cleaned up the day they are posted, but everyone is VERY busy at the moment. I’ve corrected echelon but, as you say, there are probably more…sorry I can’t be of more help at the moment.

If reappraisers want to see what differences that do not divide look like and what true dialogue looks like, they need look no further than the exchanges between Matt and Bill on the threads of Parts I-IV.  “Iron sharpens iron” and “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity” are plain to see here.  This series likely will be in much use as a resource for defining an Anglicanism truly faithful to Scripture, tradition and reason, in that order and relative importance!

I have immense admiration for the theological work of Bill Witt.  Not that I always agree with him, but above and beyond his vast reading and amazing recall, his trenchant reasoning and analytical powers are awesome.  Bill Witt is a blessing to this blog and a gift to the Church.

TW’s+ latest push here in the Rio Grande starting at the Report of the Task Force on Communion last friday at the cathedral. Since then he has posted it on a yahoo group that many in the DRG read and the new message is “Share the facilites, don’t leave!” I haven’t reponded to Tom+ on epidioriogrande since a month after ‘06. I’ve work to do before the night comes. . .

I expect we will hear that message he floated from all corners and nationally before long.

This is only marginally on-topic and probably would have been better posted with Part I, but it was too good to pass up.

There is a reply to Spong’s theses from +++Rowan (from a 1998 Church Times, as reprinted by, of all things, Tasmanian Anglican) here that is well worth reading, both for what it says about Spong and for what it says about +++Rowan.

Craig, I have posted on this same response to the 12 Spong Theses on Pt. II of Matt’s series. See also more Rowan quotations on Pt. III.  There are responses by Terebinth and others on these threads.

The quotations and discussions of the Archbishop’s response to the Spong Theses is on PT. III of Matt’s series.

TomW+ is a great asset to the cause.  He should be put in a nice glass case on a pedestal with a nice brass label “Highly developed revisionist deconstructionist from the early seventies era.”  In future generations we can have them study him and see what happens when a church or seminary casts away from the anchor of the scripture and procede with a vaporous methodology that was taught in the past.  He is the best example of this I have seen in a long time.  I’m sure he is personally a delightful gentleman and would be fun to have as a friend, but I wouldn’t want him teaching my grandchildren theology.  But sometimes people change.  We can pray.

Matt,
I believe you are wrong in your analysis of Romans 9-11. I take my stand with the great NT scholars like Karl Barth, Krister Stendhal and Paul van Buren. Your analysis is pretty standard Holiness Church or Baptist, but it is not the heart of Anglicanism, especially the Anglicanism of the late 19th and 20th century.

That does not surprize me. Several of the clergy in my diocese anxious to leave TEC are much more Bible College than they are Episcopal seminary graduates.  That’s OK, but it is not OK for them or you to claim you speak for traditional Anglicanism.

Please give it up on D058. As I explained earlier, that was a bogus resolution from the beginning. The “no” votes were, in essense, telling the proponents to stop wasting GC’s time—everyone had affirmed their faith through the Nicene Creed earlier that day and every day of GC.

W.G., Thanks for the questions and concerns. I believe if conservatives were to listen to KJS, really listen to her—most of your concerns would wither away—especially if they were to give any weight to the Biblical witness to other ways to God.

I don’t think it is going to happen, but if Matt or Phil or Jackie would really listen to KJS or be in some kind of respectful dialogue, they would discover that we are all close enough to one another to more than co-exist. Chane/KJS/TBW and others would all assert that it is through the Risen Christ that we all have access to the Father. Does that mean that everyone who has not been Baptized is consigned to Hell for eternity?
As you asked, my blog is: turningthingsupsidedown.blogspot.com.
email is: (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Phil, I respectfully ask that you pay attention to what I have written. I have not denied belief in the Virgin Birth and I have clearly affirmed my belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.  Did I not use correct code words that neo-puritans use? In my less charitable moments I wonder if you and others need straw men to attack in order to feel OK about your own religious convictions. Reread the Gospels to see how Jesus dealt with that issue—that may soften many of you on this site.

To those of you who will be leaving TEC. I regret your leaving. There is space for you in this church—but why stay with a church you treat with such scorn. Jesus has several things to say about that, too.

I take it not many moderate or liberal Episcopalians wander over to Stand Firm—I can tell you it is wandering into a nest of True Believers. True Believers get off on scorning those with whom they disagree and are not interested in coming to terms with anyone who is not a fellow TB. I wish you better than that.
Tom Woodward

Re: “To those of you who will be leaving TEC.”

TBWSF . . . always “wishing and hoping and dreaming” . . .

As in: “but why stay with a church you treat with such scorn.”

; > )

Tom said: “Did I not use correct code words that neo-puritans use? In my less charitable moments I wonder if you and others need straw men to attack in order to feel OK about your own religious convictions.”

Neo-puritans that has a nice ring to it, Tom.

There is no need for straw men - we have you and you have been a delight.

We love you Tom. I pray for you daily. Repent and return to the Lord.

Peace,

G+

TBWSF.

“Chane/KJS/TBW would all assert that it is through the risen Christ that we all have access to the Father…”

No, actually they (at least Chane and KJS) would assert, as I have shown above, that “we”, as in “Christians”, have access to “the divine” through Jesus Christ, but that others, Muslims, Buddhists etc…, have “access to the divine” through other “vehicles.” To say otherwise is, according to KJS, to “put God in a box”

Again, had they said something close to what at least the Roman branch of the Church has said (that the light of Christ is refracted through other faiths) we may have some room to work. But that is precisely what they did not say.

But, please, prove me wrong. I have cited evidence, you have countered with an assertion. Please give us something to chew on here.

Also, you can mention theologians, but it might be better to read the theologians before you do so. Barth, ironically, embraced a more Roman Catholic perspective on this, assuming, at the very least, the possibility that the benefits of Christ are distributed to all through their faith traditions:

“The proclamation of the Church must make allowance for this freedom of grace. Apokatastasis Panton? No, for a grace which automatically would ultimately have to embrace each and every one would certainly not be free grace. It surely would not be God’s grace. But would it be God’s free grace if we could absolutely deny that it could do that? <b>Has Christ been sacrified only for our sins? Has he not <b>... been sacrificed for the whole world? ... [Thus] the freedom of grace is preserved on both these sides” (Barth, God Here and Now, pp. 41-42).

This is clearly sets Barth into the second camp (described in the original article) WITHIN Christendom and sets him apart from +Chane, +KJS, and +Swing.

As far as modern theologians, the two most prominent, W. Pannenberg and Moltmann, both stand in more or less the same line with regard to the possibility of the mediation of Christ’s salvific work, with Pannenberg being far more pessimistic about the idea of universal salvation.

Your understanding of the traditional line of thought on this is badly skewed. Only a small number of liberal protestants take the line +KJS, +Chane, and Swing have taken. Christendom as a whole has ALWAYS proclaimed that salvation is only possible through the application of the material benefits of the person and work of Christ. While there are legitimate differences as to whether that work must be subjetively appropriated, there is NO difference as to whether it is Christ who saves.

As for my comments on Romans, it is clearly in line with a more Reformed understanding, but it is far from “baptist” (as if this is an insult?). But it is quite interesting that you are not willing to actually engage with what Paul says on this and that you prefer exegetes who, as you admit in your comments under your article on Episcopal Majority, read Romans through the lens of the holocaust and are, for that reason, loath to offer any exegesis that would suggest that the Jewish people have been “cut off”. I am quite familiar with the fear.  EP Sanders had it too and it has informed the NPP. But, the role of the exegete is not to read contemporary tragedies into the text, bot to exegete the text. The question is, “what does Paul say?”

Tom, Please help us understand the liberal opposition to D058. If it is what we believe, if it is what everyone just proclaimed in the Nicene creed, then it should have been an easy vote, pass it and move on, two minutes on the agenda.

That opposition is so vociferous, and the arguments against it so specious (wrong committee etc), leads one to conclude that a simple declaration of faith threatened someone’s agenda somewhere.

Here, by the way, is that great “fundementalist”  NT Wright offering his “baptist” reading of Romans 11:

“Gentile Christians must not boast of their superiority to Jewish non-Christians (not to Jewish Christians: Paul is referring to branches that are broken off), because to do so would be to set up an inverted ‘national righteousness’, which would incur the same sentence as the original (Jewish) sort (v.21). And the possibility that is always held out (continuing the answer to 11:11) is not a large-scale last-minute restoration of ‘all Jews’, irrespective of Christian faith, but the chance that Jews, during the course of the present age, will come to Christian faith and so be grafted back in. The crucial verse here is 23: ‘if they do not remain in unbelief’. Paul clearly sees the salvation of Jews in the future as dependent on their coming to Christian faith. His major concern is that the Roman church must not regard Jews as beyond the reach of the gospel of Jesus…What, then, of 11:25-7? Does it actually intrude into this sequence of thought with a different idea, a large-scale, last-minute salvation of Jews with, perhaps, no suggestion of Christian faith? The answer is emphatically no.” (NT Wright, The Climax of the Covenant, pp. 248-249)

The exegesis I offered in the article above, far from being a fringe or radically fundementalist one, is, in fact, precisely in line with the best modern scholarship.

AND, as I have already shown, in keeping with the teaching of the Chruch throughout the ages.

Yours, as Bill Witt pointed out earlier, is in line with a very tiny (and shrinking) cohort of contemporary liberal protestants.

“I take my stand with the great NT scholars like Karl Barth, Krister Stendhal and Paul van Buren.”

Tom Woodward,

If by this, you mean that Barth believed that Jews would be saved apart from the mediation of Jesus Christ, you clearly have not read Barth.  The crucial locus for Barth’s understanding of salvation is his discussion of election in Church Dogmatics 2.2.  The central thesis of that section is that the primary object of election is Jesus Christ, and that all election of individuals takes place exclusively through him. 2.2.7.32. Barth’s section on “Israel and the Church” is the very next section (7.33), in which Barth argues that there is only one elect community, that Israel is elect because Jesus Christ is the Messiah of Israel, and the Church is elect because Jesus Christ is the Lord of the Church.  Moroever, Israel is still elect (in Jesus Christ!) but “Israel is the people of the Jews which resists its divine election.” To use Barth as an example of someone who believes that Jews are saved apart from Jesus Christ is to make Barth say exactly the opposite of what he says.

While I can’t definitely speak for Matt or Phil, I can for Jackie.  Why is it that when we disagree with those on your side of this divide, the response is that we are not listening.  You see the problem is that we ARE listening.  Very closely.  And what we hear is NOT in the Anglican Tradition as you proclaim but in the new progressvie tradition.
Tom, within in your own comments over at EM, you have chastised us for having an out-dated world view more linked to the nazi party than Christ.  And you chastise us in this way because we believe the words spoken that say, I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father but through me.  I won’t even attempt to address the scholarship to rebutt the arguments over here.  Especially since Matt and Dr. Witt have done that in great detail and with great style.
And you still have not answered several questions.  I know the threads are long so let me recap:
1) What evidence do you have that David Hicks is a liar as you proclaim?  Please evidence only not the hearsay of a friend.
2) Despite the fact you dislike Exodus, NARTH, NOEL and Right to Life, why would that be a detractor for membership from a group that was seeking true diversity?
3) When you state you believe in the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection, don’t you think you need to explain to your readers that it is not a physical resurrection or a real Virgin Birth?  It is fully okay that you do not believe these things.  It is not okay that you whip us over the head with words that dance around the facts.  I am a full supporter of a person’s right to choose their religion.
Thank you for your time and for listening.

TBWSF,

From someone who is a moderate, a theological novice, and a mere foot soldier…

On “code words”....

Isn’t one of the big problems here the meaning behind the words, not just the recitation of some orthodox pass code?

Frankly, I don’t trust a lot of the words I hear from the solidly reappraising side, because I suspect language games. For example, you affirm the Virgin Birth, in some abstract sense, but at the same time, I understand that you think one can believe in the Virgin Birth and at the same time assert that the Jesus had a biological father, that Mary conceived because she had relations with someone. The abstract belief using the same label as the traditional one is masking a fundamental disagreement.

From the reasserter side, while I hardly agree with all the opinions/assertions, I don’t come away with a sense of language trickery.

I sense you would like to reclaim the word ‘orthodox’ for the reappraiser side, because having that label won’t scare the horses and upset the foot soldiers. But from what you have posted here, orthodoxy for you is abstracted away from the traditional sense of the word. Again, this seems to be a language game.

Jean

Tom Woodward, it really would be helpful in this discussion if you’d pick a stance and stick to it.  Your original thesis was that ECUSA had been falsely accused.  Matt’s thesis is that ECUSA has refused to affirm that Jesus Christ is the exclusive means of salvation.  You claim above that Matt is mistaken in his complaint about D058.  Voting it in would have been a “waste of time” because the delegates had already affirmed the Nicene Creed. Implication: “TEC affirms that Jesus Christ is the exclusive means of salvation. This is so obvious it doesn’t need to be reaffirmed.”

Similarly, you assure us that if we would only listen to KJS our concerns would melt away.  Apparently she also is only affirming the Church’s historic stance that Jesus Christ is the exclusive means of salvation.

Yet, it’s been shown several times in these posts that KJS does not affirm that Jesus Christ is the exclusive means of salvation.  He is, rather, a “vehicle” for Christians.  It would put God “in a box” to insist that he is the exclusive means of salvation for everyone.

You take away with one hand what you’ve given with another.  So after criticizing Matt for claiming that TEC refused to acknowledge that Jesus Christ is the exclusive means of salvation by passing D058,  you then chastise Matt for interpreting Paul (correctly) to teach that Jesus Christ is the exclusive means of salvation, including for Jews.

You insist now that “have not denied the virgin birth” and have “clearly” affirmed belief in the “bodily resurrection” of Christ.  Yet you have done neither.  A few articles back you affirmed that you did not believe that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin, to which Fr. Doug Taylor-Weiss responded at length.  You’ve asserted that you do not believe a “literal physical resurrection,” but have not clarified what a “non-literal” physical resurrection might mean.

You’ve claimed to be a classical Anglican, but have rejected the church’s historic hermeneutic distinction between moral and ritual law (found in the fathers, Aquinas, Luther, Hooker and the 39 Articles) in favor of Countryman’s purity/love ethic.  And you’ve brought up the “shellfish” argument, a clear indication that you’re either unaware of the Church’s hermeneutic or think we are.

You accuse Matt of exercising a baptistic “Bible school” heremeneutic when, in fact, Matt’s hermeneutical principles (set down by him at length) simply echo Hooker and the 39 Articles, and his interpretation of Romans is in agreement with Bishop N.T. Wright, as well as (I might add) Barth, whom you’ve misrepresented.

You have accused us of being “true believers.”  I think we’re more interested in coherence.  If in fact you affirm classical Anglicanism, you’ve been given every opportunity to correct our misunderstandings.  Rather, you keep confirming that we haven’t misunderstood at all.  Everything you’ve done to defend yourself confirms that your methodology and conclusions are those of Liberal Protestantism.  Your differences with Spong, Borg, Countryman, et al, are matters of degree at most.

Despite this, you continue to complain that you’ve been misunderstood and that you really are just a “classical Anglican.”  Forgive us if we kick the tires before buying the car.

“I take it not many moderate or liberal Episcopalians wander over to Stand Firm—I can tell you it is wandering into a nest of True Believers. True Believers get off on scorning those with whom they disagree and are not interested in coming to terms with anyone who is not a fellow TB. I wish you better than that. “

Not the irenic closing lines we would hope for…...

The Rev Woodward on Matt’s analysis:  “... it is not the heart of Anglicanism, especially the Anglicanism of the late 19th or 20th century.”

Ok, now we are getting warmer.  It appears that the Rev Woodward may be beginning to realize that his wildly liberal Protestant theology is of a slightly more recent origin.  Good.  His new claim that classical Anglicanism began more than 350 years after its birth is rather startling!

(Oops! I did not mean to post on Part III. See? I bungle about.)

Greetings!

Please forgive me for entering the party so belatedly. It is not that I am bad with time; I am merely new here.

I hope everyone will permit me to digress a little bit. I am a New Hampshire Episcopalian; I have met face to face with VGR for 90 minutes in what I’ve called an “elegant dispute”; I have been one of his most outspoken critics; I attended his consecration and was a member of a small and solemn protest group who respectfully walked out of that consecration.

The battle over orthodoxy is essential, of course, but determining what is orthodox is essentially difficult. If anyone is interested in reading my lengthy and exhaustive (sort of) series on the battle over what is orthodox and reasonable (Scripture, Tradition and Reason serve as our guides), they are invited to go here; anyone interested in my views of Mr. Spong can find a riotous essay here.

Mr. Woodward seems to have something terribly wrong in his impressions of life in New Hampshire. In the comment thread of Part II of this series, he wrote the following:

Jesus has already welcomed VGR into the fold: it is his responsibility after all. How do I know he has been welcomed—look at the presence of the Holy Spirit throughout his ordained ministry. The Pauline marks of the Spirit have marked his ministry from the beginning. Before he was finally elected bishop (he had been nominated in several dioceses previously) he was pretty universally praised for his ministry, both as parish priest and administrator …

While it is true that VGR is likable, affable and gifted (particularly as a group facilitator, for which he is best known), he has not been overtly pastoral since becoming bishop. For many months his weekly newsletters were filled with slights against Catholics and Evangelicals (the two biggest threats to his standing); he called into NHPR’s “The Exchange” (he was the first caller) to move the discussion about Roman Catholicism toward that church’s struggles with pedophilic priests (no doubt in an effort to undermine its moral authority, which is not one whit pastoral); many of us conservatives still wait for the “bridge” he promised to build and the “dialogue” he promised to lead. And as for his welcome in the diocese, well, my own priest, who supported VGR, has told me that many of the NH priests have asked VGR to be the “bishop” and not that “gay bishop” who espouses transparently political views everywhere he goes. Many of my fellow parishioners wish the bishop would just “go away” (and this in perhaps the most liberal, beautiful and wealthy parish in the diocese). He is by no means universally loved, nor is he universally pastoral (especially when he overtly campaigns for Democratic Party causes).

I believe it requires restraint when discussing Mr. Robinson’s effectiveness as bishop. Citing the fruits of the Spirit does not prove God applauds his bishopric; it merely proves Mr. Robinson is a Christian. Of course, VGR has sought treatment for intemperance, so it is clear that he is, like the rest of us, not yet perfect in Christ.

At Mr. Robinson’s consecration there was no small group of supporters in attendance who represented the Unitarian Church. Many held flags and banners; nearly all were identifiable by their chalice lapel pins or some printed T-shirt. That fact should indicate that something is radically amiss; to me it indicates exactly what I have said many times before: The Episcopal Church has become nothing more than a Unitarian Church with a fetish for vestments.

That Mr. Woodward should begin the comments thread in Part III of this series with

I am waiting, though, for you [Matt Kennedy] to identify a heresy in all of this or what, specifically, is moving beyond orthodoxy

startles me to no end. I encourage Mr. Woodward to read through my entire series if he is dissatisfied with Mr. Kennedy’s excellent efforts (and everyone else’s) to sufficiently outline the monumental heresy which is Mr. Robinson’s consecration. Seriously, Mr. Woodward, I urge you to read it: I promise that I can show the heretical nature of Mr. Robinson’s consecration without hardly a reference to Scripture. I mean, I’d hate to do anything so heterodox as to look at words penned thousands of years ago. Reason alone, don’t you think, can divide the orthodox from the heterodox?

Peace.

BG

Matt+,

Tom is good at making assertions.  In this series, your argument Matt, which is consistence with the catholic Faith, from Tom’s point of view is that you are more akin to a Baptist who was educated in a Bible College than an Episcopal Semianry and you are not hardly Anglican at all!  The conclusion for Tom is that you are simply wrong.  He has simply made another assertion and not addressed the problem or your argument.

This is what Tom does best.  He reacts to what offends him.  Like Spong, he is good at describing others in ways that twist what they say and who they are.

Assertions is all I have seen from Tom.  He basically is saying that your understanding of Anglicanism is not the Anglicanism of the 19th and 20th century in the ECUSA.  I would rephrase his assertion to it is not the Episcopal Church USA new understanding of Anglicanism that can be traced back to the 19th and into the 20th and 21st century.  It is Anglican as it was formed and meant to be understood and as understood by ++Rowan Williams.  It is Anglican as understood by nearly 2/3 of Anglican worldwide, just not the ECUSA and other liberal provinces.

This is exactly what the discussion is all about. Do we as Christian have a Common Faith.  The reality most are coming to on both sides is that we do not share a common faith.  Most Episcopal Seminaries have embrace various theologies that are inconsistent with the catholic Faith.

They are working to evolve Christianity into another faith, another gospel that is incompatible with the Biblical Truth as revealed in the Old and New Testaments and as accepted and received to form the Traditional Teachings of the catholic Faith as you article shows.

We are the Episcopal Church, Tom.  We are Anglican.  And your new definition of Anglicanism is a clear departure from what it is and has been.  It is your new understanding of Anglicanism and it is a minority opinion worldwide.

This is an battle for the soul of the Episcopal Church, as well as, the soul of the Anglican Communion, and it is real and spiritual.

We are not leaving but many are trying to push us out the door.  Dialogue, as understood in ECUSA, is over for it was never a fair, honest, nor open discussion.  It was a form of forced conversion and oppresion…abusive in its practice.

The reality is that the Traditionalists have learned from the progressives, liberals, and revisionists how to fight back and are!!!

Reality is that the ECUSA only has money to offer the Anglican Communion.  Many dioceses are depended on the large wealthy Churches to keep them afloat.  The diocese of Florida is self-destructing under Bishop John Howard.  It is not the only one.

All Tom has is assertions without substance.  Make your case Tom or stand down.  Assertions will no longer work.

>I have not denied belief in the Virgin Birth and I have clearly affirmed my belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.  Did I not use correct code words that neo-puritans use?<

This is the problem, perhaps? Why are you trying to say code words? Why not simply say what you mean? If you have been trying to use “code words,” does that mean you have been using words which mean one thing to us but by which you mean something different? Let your yea be yea. Not denying belief in the Virgin Birth is hardly the same as affirming it - do you? And as is evident from the posts above, you have left us very confused as to wha you mean by a “bodily resurrection.” I am not a neo-puritan, thank you, but an Anglican.

Rev. Woodward, I’m sorry, but I can’t resist - dang that internet keeping a record of what was written!  Here are your words:

<blockquote>I do not understand your charges or concerns about deconstructing the Creeds or scriptures. I understand how those on the “orthodox” side are doing both—demanding a litmus test for choosing the correct understandings of “the Virgin Mary,”</blockquote>

. . . your citing the question about belief surrounding “The Virgin Mary.” I do not believe it is a matter of core doctrine that Mary was a virgin at the birth of Jesus—that His birth was at the divine initiative is important, but the history of the phrase, coming from a questionable interpretation of Isaiah, particularly its function at the time it was inserted into the creed indicate that it is the divine initiative that is important, not the nuts and bolts of it. We get to differ about the nuts and bolts . . .

I think 90% of readers would be left with the impression you are skeptical of the Virgin Birth, but I concede you did not explicitly deny it.

Still, when you go all, “litmus test,” and, “differing on the nuts and bolts,” on us, I have to wonder what the different understandings are.  Seems like the natural understanding is there was a birth, of a virgin.  Since this is a family website, I won’t spell it out for you, but go to any dictionary and take definition 1 for both words.  I know, that doesn’t make any sense, and science tells us it can’t happen that way - that’s why we call it a miracle.  That’s OK, right?  Because, if you don’t think God can perform miracles, you’re putting Him in an awfully small box.  (Apologies to Mrs. Schori.)

Tom,

If I may, can I try to summarize where we are in this discussion.

My last post to you included this line of questions:

___
“OK let me try to explain that better.  What exactly is your point here?  Is it that we on the conservative side are “false” in accusing TEC of embracing this idea that Jesus is only one of many paths to the divine (your response being, “Hey, TEC believes Jesus is the only way, heck, we say as much every Sunday in our liturgy!”)

OR are you saying that the conservative side is “false” in believing that Jesus is the only way to the divine (your response being the “so what” response mentioned above, “Hey, if you are going make accusations about us, at least come up with legitimate accusations, you dumb bunch of ninnies!””
___

In your reply, which responded to my question about the language used by KJS to describe Jesus, you wrote:
___
” I believe if conservatives were to listen to KJS, really listen to her—most of your concerns would wither away—especially if they were to give any weight to the Biblical witness to other ways to God.
___

Based on that response, I think your answer to my question is more in line with my dumb bunch of ninnies choice, right?  You are saying that our claim that Jesus is the ONLY way to the Father is mistaken, right?  I think you are saying that we who believe Jesus to be the ONLY way have somehow failed to deal properly with what you say is a “Biblical witness to other ways to God.”

So if that is the case, our accusation that TEC and its leadership have questioned whether Jesus is the ONLY way is in fact TRUE and not FALSE, right?  Because, in your opinion, TEC and its leadership have the “correct” view of the Biblical witness to the many paths to God.

I think that you’re gonna agree with my summary but I’ll wait first before offering my follow up because I want to make sure I’m understanding you. I’m posting here and not on your site because I think it is helpful for all to see this conversation.

Peace.

Oh and Jackie, don’t think I didn’t notice that you sic’d me.  Ouch! When you least expect it, I’ll be there, oh yes, I will be there.  [insert scarylaugh.wav]

Dear W.G.,
  There are clearly two strains in the NT about a claim for exclusivity of access to the Father. The most widely held view, I’m sure, is that which reflects John 14:6. Another view is represented by Paul’s strain of universalism in Colossians and Jesus’ own treatment of those marginalized and not believing in him (most would also include “I have other sheep not of this fold. .”).

W.G.—continuing after submitting inadvertantly,

My article noted that TEC is charged with failure to hold the one view acceptable to conservatives. I do not believe it is core doctrine to believe one of these views to the exclusion of the other. I am not attacking Stand Firmites here!

One of the deficiencies of the new evangelicalism or as some refer to it as the neo-puritanism is that it has a very difficult time with paradox and understanding conflicts within the scripture. No one should be excommunicated for having such a hard time, but the neo-puritans (not a perjorative term) may not, in turn, excommunicate those who acknowledge such diversity in scripture.

Tom,
Could you list those conflicts for us please?  It would be helpful if we truly put all our cards on the table with hands in clear view.

Thanks,
Jackie

WG - You won’t have to wait long.  I make more than my share of mistakes and all too often I am too rushed to hit preview before submit!  Believe me it wasn’t done with malice.

BTW, did anyone follow the link from Bill Gnade above and read his article? He really makes some excellent arguments although they are mostly about +VGR and not all the rest of TEC/ECUSA’s various heresies.

the snarkster

May I add to Jackie’s question?  Pursuant to the Virgin Birth question, Rev. Woodward, could you just tell us what you do believe about it, so we don’t have to beat around the bush and interpret your language?  If you could be clear, that would be helpful.  So, if you think Mary was not literally a virgin as a gynecologist today would understand it when she gave birth to Jesus, just say so.  If you think the whole virgin concept only got in there because of a faulty translation of Isaiah and somebody clumsily trying to show a prophecy fulfilled, just say so.  If you’re not sure what happened, but you affirm it was something initiated by God and would like to leave it at that, just say so.  And so forth.  Then, as Jackie says, your cards will be on the table.  Fair?

Dear Tom,

Good reply.  Thanks.  I’m sure there will be much private rending of garments and nashing of teeth over here over your alleged “two views” but I’m confident that we Stand Firmites (or is it Stand Firmtites, I always get those two confused) will respond properly in public.

I can appreciate your comment about paradox.  It is (in my opinion) true that many of today’s evangelical American denominations (might be true of foreign ones too but I don’t have experience with them) do struggle mightily with paradox.  I would place your “paradox” notion under a larger umbrella of the term “mystery.”  One of the great aspects of our Episcopal/Anglican tradition is our allowance of mystery in our liturgy (e.g. the mystery of the proclamation of the Word, the mystery of the Eucharist).  I wonder if you’ve read Robert Webber’s Ancient-Future Faith, which really said all that stuff about mystery better than I did.

Anyway, let’s keep this moving forward.  I’m ok with your comments about the “two views” because there is a sticky wicket here about our relationship to God’s Chosen People.  Now I’m sure the systematic theologians here can work out a neat framework to tie it all back to Jesus but I’m ok with N.T. Wright’s covenant idea.  It’s a mystery.

That being said, if someone asks me “how to get to heaven” (putting aside any smart alec remark about directions and the opportunity to discuss Wright’s understanding of heaven and true resurrection), I’m gonna say, “In my church, we believe that Jesus is the Way, the Rock of Ages, the Sure Foundation, the Alpha and the Omega.” Now I’ll concede that other religions think otherwise, but that’s because they are other RELIGIONS.  I bet you’re probably in agreement with that comment.

So let’s shift the focus away from the idea of paths to God generally and toward the idea of what we view as the life and work of Jesus Christ (because I think everything hinges on our understanding of that).  While many will want to argue that Jesus is the only Way because he said he was the only way, I think a better way to handle this is to avoid the interpretation question and ask the historical/theological question—just what did Jesus’ life and death and resurrection accomplish?

WG,

Not sure why anynone would gnash teeth or tear garments since Fr. Tom has not actually made anything more than a thus far unfounded assertion? I think our garments are safe until there is actually something of substance to respond too.

Did you actually read, by the way, NT Wright’s take on this that I quoted above? There is no two covenants about it. I’m not sure where you are finding your sticky wickets, but its not from +Wright.

I don’t think the focus can rightly be shifted until Fr. Tom offers something substantive to back up his assertions to this point.

Paul was a universalist.  Universalism is perfectly orthodox Anglicanism.  Hmmmm.  As “neo-puritan” I find anyone holding such a theology a heretic (not a perjorative term).

Tom

I think your commment about <i>paradox and understanding [of] conflicts within the scripture</i>

is very illuminating here. The Christian view is that there are not - indeed then cannot be - conflicts within scripture: scripture is divinely inspired, is not paradoxical nor self-contradictory.
Matt has argued (elsewhere) that scripture is simple enough to be understood by the “people in the pews” and the 39 Articles again assert this fact (especially art 6 and 7).

(the most germane article in this whole business is of course, article 33 but that’s really a separate issue)

Matt,

Never meant to suggest that Wright believes in “two covenants.”  I was simply short-handing (code wording?) his idea of covenant vis-a-vis justification and righteousness (what do we do about Abraham, etc.).  Again, not my area of expertise.

I’m not sure how to answer your question about whether I actually read the quoted material above.  While I did read it, I’m not sure I read it “actually.”  I’m a huge Wright fan so the more Wright on this blog the better in my opinion.  Keep the quotations coming. 

I think, Matt, and it’s only my opinion, that shifting the focus to (or sharpening the focus on) the life and work of Jesus Christ will be helpful in figuring out just what the heck Tom is saying (since the current discussion leaves many here scratching their heads and wondering why the nails aren’t holding the jello to the wall).  Just my suggestion.

One of my frustrations in this conversation is that Tom Woodward continually makes unfounded assertions about either historical facts of church history or biblical exegesis that are not so much “paradoxical,” but rather “just ain’t so.”

I’m more than glad to provide correction.  So to Fr. Tom’s assertions that his views coincide with those of Anglicanism of the 19th and 20th century—at least this is a shift away from his “classical Anglicanism” claim.  But, alas, it “just ain’t so.”  Could he possibly mean the prominent biblical scholars of 19th century Anglicanism—Westcott, Hort, and Lightfoot?  Sorry, all reasserters. 

Could he mean the Lux Mundi school of “liberal Anglo-Catholics”?  Again, sorry, “just ain’t so.”  Charles Gore’s response to the “Modern Churchman” movement of his day was to write a book entitled The New Theology and the Old Religion.  Gore insisted that critical biblical scholarship did not allow for denying the literal sense of the articles of the creed.

The bishops at the time responded to the controversy by asserting: “[T]he historical facts stated in the creeds are an essential part of the faith of the Church.” Lambeth, 1908. “[T]he denial of any of the historical facts stated in the Creeds goes beyond the limits of legimate interpretation and gravely imperils that sincerity of profession which is plainly incumbent on the ministers of Word and Sacrament.” Convocation of the Bishops of the Church of England, April 31, 1914.

Could he mean biblical scholars of the twentieth century like William Hoskyns and Sir Edwyn Davys?  Again, no. Their book The Riddle of the New Testament was one of those decisive moments in church history that reaffirmed the Church’s traditional Christology and set back liberal Protestantism a generation.  Their heirs (like C. F. D. Moule, Alan Richardson, and now N. T. Wright)—all solidly orthodox.

What about systematic theology?  Gore, Frank Weston, and numerous others all affirmed the Church’s traditional Christology.  Essays Catholic and Critical? A collection of solidly orthodox Anglo-Catholic theology. Archbishops Michael Ramsey and William Temple?  Orthodox.  Oliver Quick? Leonard Hodgson? E. L. Mascall? Austin Farrer? Sorry, all would have agreed with Matt in this debate.

Did liberal Protestantism exist in Anglicanism in the twentieth century? Indeed. As Stephen Sykes points out in his book The Integrity of Anglicanism, liberalism was a small movement in the C of E beginning in 1920s.  Significantly, it was always understood to be a dissenting movement within Anglicanism.  Sykes could write in 1978: “[S]o far as I know, no-one has ever suggested that the modernist movement is really the core of the Church of England . . .” (p. 26).

But, of course, this is exactly what the good folks of Episcopal Majority are trying to tell us.  On top of that, not only are they trying to tell us that Liberal Protestantism has always been what Anglicanism is about, but that in fact they’re not really liberal Protestants, and that those who actually affirm historical Anglicanism are not Anglicans at all but “neo-Puritans.”

This kind of retelling of church history makes me think of nothing so much as those official histories of the Soviet Union in which Trotsky’s picture was subsequently erased from photographs so that he ceased to exist.

I’ve been expecting the commissar to vanish ever since this thread started.

As to unaversalism:
Universalism seems arguable only if by it one means, as a prediction, that all will ultimately come to faith in Jesus. It cannot mean that those who reject Him will be saved through some other efficacy, some other “vehicle to the Divine.”  To assert otherwise seems to make Jesus only one of a type, not the unique 2nd Person of the Trinity we proclaim Him to be.
But the argument for a Christian universalism must hang not on the means of salvation, but on whether the door will ever close before all are gathered in. Clearly, any who wish to reject the salvation offered, and who wish for their rejection to be effectual, may remain outside.

As to paradox, it seems that what Woodward+ means to do is not so much holding two seemingly incompatable truths in tension, so that a deeper truth and mystery may occupy the space created (True God and yet true man), as to “water down” the difficulty to a sort of lowest common denominator. Thus “physical ressurection” can be affirmed, but need not mean a “literal” physical ressurection. By so refusing to allow truths which are bigger than we are, I think we risk a shrinking spiritual universe, heading towaord nothingness.

As with inventive history, Tom Woodward makes the claim that the NT has two conflicting strains about Jesus Christ’s exclusivity for salvation.  Since the “two covenants” dog won’t hunt, we’re introduced to “Paul’s universalism” in Collosians and “Jesus’ own treatment of those marginalized and not believing in him” in the saying that he has “other sheep,” not of this fold.

Again, it “just ain’t so.”  Collosians and the Gospel of John have two of the highest Christologies in the NT.  Far from claiming that Jesus Christ is not the exclusive cause of salvation, Paul’s argument in Collosians is all about rejecting such a claim.  Jesus Christ is the one through whom the entire universe is created, in whom the fullness (pleroma) of deity dwells bodily, and through Christ God reconciles all things to himself, “whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.” 

The statement about “other sheep” is in the same gospel as John 14:6.  And, of course, the other sheep (clearly the Gentile church in this context) are saved exclusively through the work of Christ.  The surrounding context reads: “I lay down my life for the sheep.  And I have other sheep that are not of this fold.  I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice.  So there will be one flock, one shepherd.”

Far from teaching that there are some who will be saved apart from the person and work of Christ, John’s gospel is claiming just the opposite.  Just as Jesus has died for the Jews, so also he has died for the Gentiles, and they too are to be included in the one body by responding to the “voice” of the Shepherd.  As there will be only one flock, there will be only one shepherd.  John’s message here is identical to Paul’s in Romans 9-11.

WG - We here at Stand Firm are not squeamish.  We are not trying to limit God’s infinite power or His majesty.  We are not trying to dictate what Jesus said or did.  While I fully agree that there is mystery in the Bible, I am not afraid to look at controversial issues or even those verses that some may believe are in conflict.  I learned long ago that God is big enough to handle any question I can think up.  Not that I always like the answer you understand.  I did that for many years with Paul’s writings and it was only when I embraced the Bible fully as Truth that my eyes were truly opened.  Anyone who really believes Paul is a male chauvinist pig, hasn’t studied his works. 

We are simple folk trying our best to live our lives through the faith that was once delivered to the apostles.  Now, for me that means studying the Bible to discern God’s path for me and what is right and what is wrong.  And when the wrongs interfere with my wants, that is when I must find the humility to get back on my knees (again) and ask God’s help and forgiveness.  I am not just seeking for him to take it away (wouldn’t that be grand!) but for strength and courage to face whatever must be faced.  Even if that whatever is plain ole me. 

While I am sure everyone here appreciates your intention to faciliate this discussion, I am not sure that is what is needed.  Most likely everyone here will agree to abide by the rules of the game - and should one of us slip and utter an invective - the rest surely will offer Christian reproof to bring us back on the path.  Tom seems very mature in his faith and many here have said he is welcome to the debate.  However, let us be clear - just because he is welcome does not mean we change the rules for him.  The rules are the same for him as it is for the rest.  Let’s face it - do you think for one minute that if I were to throw some of Tom’s theories out on the floor that I would be allowed to throw and run?  No - I will either be called to task and made to provide structure and context to my argument or be put in my place - as is rightly so.  So then, why are you asking that we have separate rules for Tom?  Quite frankly, if I were Tom, I would be offended by the offer.  But then that’s just me.

Now this post is long enough that you just might get that (sic).

Believe me, I am reading every word of this post and all the responses (even the big words). I will have to admit that I am manifestly unqualified to respond in any meaningful way. One thing just jumps out at me: the thoughtfulness, knowledge and relevance of the responses of Bill Witt, Matt+, WG, Jackie, et al as opposed to the vague, unsubstantiated, and flat out wrong assertions of Tom+. I am forced to ask one more time: Tom+, exactly what theological planet are you from?

Keep up the good work guys. This is great!

the snarkster

ACK! Never try to type, answer the telephones, and pretend to do your job all at the same time. My typos are enough to make the eyes hurt. Apologies all around.

Most of the time I compose in Word and cut and paste. When I don’t it looks like dis.

You put me in some pretty tall company there Snarkster.  I sure do appreciate the compliment but I’m just a simple country girl.

Having WG looking over my shoulder for a (sic) is also greatly improving my grammar and spelling.

I will be posting part five either tomorrow afternoon or Monday morning depending on my parish workload (which, since this is my first week back after vacation, is pretty heavy).

There will likely be about 3 more articles including part 5 in this series. Thanks to everyone who has participated.

Jackie,

No sic’s here, but I did want to ask what prompted your post addressed to me.  You suggest that I want to give Tom some kind of special treatment or change the rules for him.  I don’t recall writing that (let alone thinking it).  Just curious.

Also, did I suggest that we here at Stand Firm were squeamish?

Matt, look forward to Part V.

My post referred to yours of 2:16.  If I misread it, please accept my apology.  I am simply trying to find a way that we can “cut through the Jello” so to speak.

Tom has adopted a hit and run policy.  He has thrown a bunch of stuff on the floor and seems reluctant to provide the means to clean it up.  Seems in all our interests to just lay the cards on the table.  I noticed he hasn’t answered any questions lately over at EM either.

Tom, once again you refuse to engage the issues, only make unsupported assertions.  I asked you at the beginning of Part III’s comments to state clearly for us all these “conflicts in Scripture” that you assert are there.  No more vague allegations.  No more slanders on Scripture.  Make the charges against Scripture and let it defend itself in this open court.  Number them, bullet-point them, whatever you like, but state them in plain English.

There is a Zen story (this example from another religious tradition should please you) about a student who came to see his master about a problem.  The master, drawing his sword, told the student, “You say you have a problem?  Then show me that problem!  Drag it out here in the open!  If you can show me this problem I will slay it with my sword and you will never be troubled by it again!  But if you cannot show me your problem I will not believe you really have one at all.”

So, Tom, don’t suffer alone!  Tear those conflicts’ hiding places away, type them out of their lairs in plain English!  Surely even such fierce dragons as apparent conflicts in Scripture cannot withstand the combined assault of so many commenters who stand here ready to come to your aid!

Unless, of course, you really prefer to clutch those “conflicts” to your bosom and crawl into the shadows with them, hiding from the Light of the world.

Milton and others, I do not have the time to respond over and over again. I have found that, at most, three on this list are interested in dialogue. Who in his or her right mind would post something in such a hostile environment? It may not seem hostile to most of you because it is your daily discourse.

And, Snarkster, I am firmly on this planet, though Baptized into the Kingdom. I’ve taught at three of our seminaries and published from another. Those seminaries are in the mainstream of Anglicanism in this country. Trinity School for Ministry is not.  It is an innovation of several prominent neo-puritans, but it does not represent Anglicanism.

Have any of you found the Christian Century article about the battle for the Bible during the struggle over abolition? It is fascinating. It looks at the Biblical arguments by those who believed slavery was validated by the Bible, quoting chapter and verse in every little detail. On the other side were the abolitionists, who countered with the meaning of the Bible taken as a whole. It’s the same argument we are having here. The subtext in the argument has to do with different orientations to the Bible and to the teaching of Jesus Christ. I would not want to be in your position, just as you wouldn’t want to be in mine. I’ve let you all know time and time again how to find me on the web. I’m happy to talk about Jesus and how he taught and healed and confronted the narrowness of his own religious tradition, how he freed his people and nourished them—but I am not going to get buried under a mountain of proof texting. Jesus resisted that over and over again - and I choose to follow his example.
Tom Woodward

Tom, if you would take the time once to make an actual response (list the conflicts you find in Scripture) instead of repeating your unsupported assertion “over and over again” then perhaps you would get a response that wouldn’t feel “hostile”.  And you will note that I have responded to your post “Falsely Accused” on Episcopal Majority, and you have not yet engaged there with the points I raised in my comments.  I could copy my comments there and here to your blog if you would like.  Perhaps I will do so tomorrow!

By the way, our interim rector went to Trinity.  If she (yes, SHE) is representative of their end result, then I say franchise Trinity all over the US, no, all over the world.  She preaches and lives the Gospel of the Bible and of Jesus, the one of transformation and of new life for us hopeless, born sinners, free for the asking if only we will, by the mercies of God, make of our bodies (our whole selves) a living sacrifice, pleasing to God, which is our spiritual worship service.  You say neo-Puritan like it’s a bad thing!

“On the other side were the abolitionists, who countered with the meaning of the Bible taken as a whole.”

I suppose it doesn’t need mentioning that Wilberforce (in England) and the abolitionists in the US were all Evangelicals who firmly endorsed the inerrancy of Scripture.  Once again, this is an example of not being aware of the hermeneutic principles that guided your own tradition. 

Hermeneutically, the key here is again Hooker’s distinction (borrowed from Aquinas) on the distinction between moral, ritual, ecclesiastical, and civil law.  Also, as I mentioned on the women’s hats discussion, the distinction between natural and positive law.

Hooker himself (in debating with his Puritan opponents) notes that merely narrative and descriptive matters in Scripture are not prescriptive.  That a form of slavery existed in the OT (not at all equivalent to nineteenth century chattel slavery, BTW) does not make slavery normative.  Again, according to Hooker and the tradition, the positive civil laws of the OT are not permanently binding.  This is why we can live in a democratic republic rather than an inherited monarchy (particularly a monarchy descended from the line of King David) without in any way coming into conflict with Scripture.

In contrast to issues in Scripture that fall under positive civil law are those issues that are rooted in the permanent natural laws established in creation.  One of those areas includes heterosexual marriage, which is grounded in God’s creation of humanity as male and female.  Hooker addresses this issue of the natural law foundations of heterosexual marriage in his discussions with the Puritans about wedding rings (of all things!).  Heterosexual marriage is a permanent institution because grounded in God’s intention for humanity in the original creation (Gen 1 & 2).  Homosexuality is a violation of this order (as Hooker notes in a footnote).  In contrast, the practice of exchanging wedding rings is a matter of custom and positive civil law.  It is morally neutral.

Aquinas indirectly addresses this issue in a discussion of the marital rights of slaves over against the wishes of their masters.  Aquinas argues that heterosexual marriage is a natural institution rooted in creation. Slavery, in contrast, is a human invention, and a punishment for wrong-doing.  Moreover, Aquinas says, the Bible encourages freedom from slavery whenever possible.  He refers to the Exodus here.  And the gospel itself brings liberty.  Accordingly, the slave’s right to marry overrides the slave owner’s preferences, and if the slave can get freedom, even better.  Good old Aquinas . . . the abolitionist!

The slavery issue is nothing more than a red herring.

I cannot begin to voice my disappointment. Mr. Woodward’s choice to be silent has left me dumbfounded: he may have found some hostility here, but surely he has not found anything but hospitality coming from me (and several others, at least!). I offered him an opportunity to discuss heresy in light of a series of essays (see above) I wrote on the matter; this offer was in response to his incredulity that any of us should think the consecration of VGR is heretical at all.

But if Mr. Woodward wants to know real hostility, he should perhaps come to NH for a few days and pretend to be a conservative Episcopalian. There is no openness here; there is no love of dialogue or divergent opinion. It is all about convergence, about landing on a new orthodoxy (which is really an old heterodoxy) that rejects a traditional hermeneutic, a well-reasoned authority, and the ancient meaning of sacramentalism. If Mr. Woodward wants to witness a descent into abject subjectivism in Christian witness (“God is leading me, telling me, speaking to me; He is doing a new thing and who are you to stand in His way?”), then he should work in a New Hampshire parish for a few months.

But even if there is “dialogue” in the diocese of New Hampshire, it is not about conclusions, it is about process: it is about taking pleasure in the utterly vain exercise of appearing to love and understand other viewpoints. It is really about showmanship; it is about wearing one’s tolerance and expansive understanding on one’s sleeve like a badge of honor: “Look at us, we are so understanding and tolerant of differing viewpoints.” Remarkably, there is no wavering from this conviction in many parishes: the ONLY thing that is absolute is that nothing is absolute, and that this one hallowed absolute must never be surrendered to the religious right (making, in total, two absolutes). Dialogue that is in essence and purpose merely procedural is mere gas-bagging over red wine and tasty canapés. It almost appears to be a fulfillment of Pauline prophecy, that certain members of the Church shall be “ever learning but never coming to a knowledge of truth.” The spirit of this current Christian age is one fascinated, not by the rule (canons) of Christian living, but the exceptions. The zeitgeist is in fact enamored of exceptionalism, preferring exceptions to the rules rather than the rules themselves. It’s all a bit like telling people that they can no longer stand during prayers because Smith and Jones have lost their legs: the exception becomes normative (and a reason for patting oneself on the back as a person of discernment and love).

If Mr. Woodward would just engage in a dialogue about the REASONABLENESS of VGR’s consecration, he would find that there is no reason whatsoever to bury oneself beneath a “mountain of proof texting.” Let us not discuss the Bible; let us discuss the reasonableness of certain arguments that have been offered to bolster the consecration of a homosexual, divorced, unmarried man to the episcopate by popular vote. My series is in fact built on the assumption that of the three legs to Episcopal discernment, Scripture and Tradition are no longer common ground shared by most of us; Reason, at least, is still presumed in our discourses and disagreements and is thus perhaps the last, and best, resort for finding our way to truth and out of falsehood.

Peace.

BG

Dear William Witt,

You speak of Hooker—HAH!  And BAH!!!

He was not a Classical Anglican, and thus does not really count in this pleasant dialogue.

Further, he was a neo-Puritan.

Also, Aquinas.

[sniff, toss head]

The theologians who are classical Anglicans—not neo-Puritans—are Walter Wink, Countryman, and Boswell.  Also Borg and Spong—all Classical Anglicans, steeped in our beloved historic tradition from the late 19th century and particularly the 1970s.

If we are to use theologians of other denominations, then maybe Crossan will do.

Yours for greater dialogue, inclusivity, and CLASSICAL ANGLICANISM.

Signed,

Your orthodox, Anglican, traditional—yet moderate and open-minded and progressive and liberal as well—friend,

Sarah

Ah Hah!  I have it figured out now.  Under the Progressive theory, Satan was not seeking to corrupt Adam and Eve, he was simply looking to expand the conversation.

STAND FIRM ALERT: SARAH HEY HAS GONE OFF THE DEEP END (it must be all the U.S. Open coverage on USA cable).

Jackie, I have heard a lesbian priest explain that Adam and Eve did not sin because they were only using their God-given freedom.

“I’ve taught at three of our seminaries and published from another. Those seminaries are in the mainstream of Anglicanism in this country. Trinity School for Ministry is not.  It is an innovation of several prominent neo-puritans, but it does not represent Anglicanism.”

And, or course, this is part of the problem.  9 of 11 seminaries are full partners in innovating ecusa.  Many of us here look forward to the day when innovating ecusa will not be part of Anglicanism at all in this country.  At that point, ecusa will have 9 seminaries and continue on its downward path.  The Network will have 2 seminaries and will continue to preach the faith that was once for all delivered to the church.  The Network will continue to plant churches as ecusa continues to close churches.  This is the future, which is to say that ecusa has no future.

Tony - My comment was made tongue in cheek. 

Isn’t it more than a little scary
that someone charged as a shepherd would make that statement?

Reading the Rev.Mr. Woodward’s musings,which have been thoroughly and ably refuted by Fr. Kennedy,Dr.Witt and co,I find great hope and greater appreciation for ‘the faith once and for all committed to those who belong to Christ’(Jude 3 Phillips N.T).Thank you all.
To Fr.Woodward,Dr.Packer wrote some words 50+ years ago that still bear some consideration:‘Man’s mind becomes free only when its thoughts are brought into captivity to Christ and His Word;till then,it is at the mercy of sinful prejudice and dishonest mental habits within,and popular opinion,organized propaganda and unquestioned commonplaces without.‘p.143 Fundamentalism And The Word Of God
‘If anyone in the present debate lacks intellectual freedom,it is those whose minds are governed by the tyrannical modern axiom that whatever is newest must be truest,what is old must be out of date and change is always progress;those who feel they must deny what Christ affirmed about Scripture rather than break with nineteenth-century ideas of what assumptions are “scientific” and what are not;those in the grip of a theological neurosis that makes them regard rationalistic principles of biblical criticism as an inviolable sacred cow.‘p.144

Would you like some comments made by “orthodox” clergy which sound more like Karl Rove or Adolph Hitler than a shepherd. There are several out there; however, I would never use them as normative—they are aberrations, as is the “cutesy” accusation above.

Nine of our 11 seminaries have been infected with a rush to heresy?  I have taught in one of your remaining two. The other is more aptly a Bible College with vestments, isn’t it? I heard of an “orthodox” bishop who said as much (see how easy it is?).

With those percentages, it is easy to determine who is the aberration and walking away from whom. I am happy with GTS, VTS, ESSW, CDSP, SW and the others—good, strong faculty steeped in traditional Anglicanism, teaching about the strains worshiped on SFIF, but resisting any temptation to be subsumed under it.

Of course, the reasonableness of Gene Robinson’s nomination for bishop in several dioceses and for his election in New Hampshire is that the people with whom he has worked for so many years have seen the ways God has blessed his work and his presence among them. (Galatians 5). The reasonableness has to do with what they learned from his work and his leadership and his spirituality. The reasonableness is that all Canons of the Church were followed in his election, in the consent to his consecration and to his consecration. What am I missing here? What is the large majority of the Episcopal Church missing here? The reasonableness is the same reasonableness of Reformed and Conservative Judaism in ordaining qualified gay and lesbian Jews as rabbis, because they understand how deep the conflict is between the legal proscriptions and the overwhelming evidence against those laws in the rest of their Scripture.

One last comment: in citing the piece from the Christian Century, I was calling attention to the structure of the arguments on both sides of the issue—I was not accusing anyone on this list with siding with slavery. Re-read what I wrote if you must—your quick assumptions are poisoning your responses. The author of the article, also, refrains from labelling. I have my own conclusions, but they are not relevant to what I was trying to raise.

Not a rush to heresy, Tom, a steady movement over 40 years. 

As for the Bible School in vestments, you might want to check the records on GOEs.  TSM ordinands regularly best many, if not all from your 9 seminaries as judged by GOE readers.  I don’t know whether TSM folks are smarter or just better prepared. 

The Adolph Hitler comment is over the top.  Did you not take your tolerant, inclusive love pill this morning?

I learn so much here on SFIF.  In preparation for services tomorrow my barefoot wife is right now embroidering “Neo-puritan, baptist, Bible college” on my chasubleright below “knucke dragger, bible thumper and NASCAR.”  Some low churchmen are already objecting to my pride.

Rev. Woodward - Karl Rove.  Adolph Hitler.  Nice.  Your superior reasoning skills continue to snow us under.

What was the comment that sounded like Karl Rove, and who said it?  Ditto for the Adolph Hitler comment.

This is getting tiresome.  If you can’t back up those accusations, stop making them.  You sound like a fool.

Thanks to Matt, William Witt and all those who have spent time to answer Toms assertions - the interchange has been quite illuminating.

I’m not qualified to get into the theological side of this discussion. About the tone, one thing really struck me: I noticed a big difference in the style and respect shown by a previous reappraising poster - Almost Live Priest, and Tom. ALP maintained a constantly respectful tone, and never used any veiled epithets that I recall. At least Tom never dropped the F-bomb (Fundamentalist), but there is repeated usage of various derogatory terms such as “neo-Puritan”, and “True Believer” (think Eric Hoffer and his 50s book of the same title - this really is an insult if you’ve read the book).  I think everyone around here is thick-skinned enough that such labels are ignored. Nonetheless, the repeated use of these ‘code words’ for the F-bomb speaks volumes ... when coming from someone claiming to represent the “Episcopal Majority”.

Jean

Wow! Some of you are ready for the Ecclesiastical Olympics in the long jump. Talk about jumping to conclusions! I was responding to Tony’s remark, not untypical for others in citing someone on the fringe and asserting they stand in the middle of your “opponent’s” theology. Here is Tony’s remark:

Jackie, I have heard a lesbian priest explain that Adam and Eve did not sin because they were only using their God-given freedom.

I compared that to someone claiming they had heard an “orthodox” priest who sounded like Rove and Hitler, as though that were normative for those who refer to themselves as “orthodox.” I quickly said I disavowed that kind of tactic—and would make no such assumption.

So much for the plain meaning of what I wrote. No wonder you are having such fun asserting that I don’t believe in the Virgin Birth, Resurrection of the Dead, etc.. Take a deep breath and count, after me: 1,2, 3, . . . . .

Fr. Tom,

Not sure why you mentioned Trinity here? It is a fantastic school, but snarkster did not bring it up.

If you are assuming I am a TESM grad, well, I’m not.

As I mentioned in part 4, I’m from VTS.

Tom - You might want to re-read your comments.  I truly believe you are the one who needs to take a deep cleansing breath. 

So far, we have garnered from you that you do not like George Bush, Karl Rove or Adolph Hitler.  Okay.  It’s a free country.  I am not particularly enamoured of Bill or Hillary but I can agree with you on Adolph. 

You have made assertions that you have put forth as Biblically based and sometimes backed by theologians which may or may not be Orthodox or widely respected for their work.  The people here have countered in a Biblically based manner backed by widely accepted theologians. 

My earlier comment stands.  You are becoming a hit and run artist.  Throwing stuff on the floor without being willing to provide the basis for the remark.  Case in point:  Martyn Minns and David Hicks.  I have asked (I thought politely) have you spoken with Martyn.  If not, where are you getting your information?  Could you share it with us?  As to David Hicks, you proclaimed here and on EM that his report had been debunked for years but you have yet to respond to the request for the information so that we can all see it.  You offered to respond to these questions in what you consider a friendlier environment.  The last time I checked EM’s site you hadn’t responded since August 23 (my Mom’s BD BTW). 

But Tom, you really need to be willing to separate invective from honest critique of your comments.

“And, Snarkster, I am firmly on this planet, though Baptized into the Kingdom. I’ve taught at three of our seminaries and published from another. Those seminaries are in the mainstream of Anglicanism in this country. Trinity School for Ministry is not.  It is an innovation of several prominent neo-puritans, but it does not represent Anglicanism.”

Tom+: That is bunk and you know it. You could possibly make a weak argument that your views,the views of your revisionista bretheren and the teachings of the various revisionista seminaries are representative of mainstream Episcopalianism but they are, by no stretch of the imagination, representative of mainstream Anglicanism. The fact that you taught at three of the seminaries only serves to explain the glut of revisionista priests that are currently busily destroying Classical Anglicanism in TEC/ECUSA.

Dr.Witt, in one of his point by point refutations of your postings above, showed that your views and theology are about as far from Classical Anglicanism as you can get. You have yet to respond to that in any meaningful way.

So, how about it? Crap or get off the pot.

the snarkster

Tom, for the 3rd time, a simple list of passages will do.  Please list the specific confilcts in Scripture to which you refer in asserting that those conflicts make it impossible for the unchurched to believe Christianity.  Or, of course, you may continue to ignore such a simple request in favor of making yet more unsupported assertions.

Tom, read more carefully.  Heard is not necessarily second or third hand.  This lesbian priest is in our district of the Diocese of Central NY.  I would be happy to furnish her name to you privately (notice the difference here between this exchange and the polygamist African bishops exchange?) so that you can hear for yourself her denial of original sin.

Snarkster,you’re a man after my own heart.
While I’m all for true dialogue and courtesy,I think that at some point there has to be a recognition of the aberattional and obstructive nonsense,described elequently as ‘doctrinal novelty’,‘morbid jumble of disputation and argument,things which lead to nothing but…..insults and malicious innuendoes’(1 Tim.6:3,4 Phillips).

Tom,

“I compared that to someone claiming they had heard an ‘orthodox’ priest who sounded like Rove and Hitler . . .”

No, you did not.  What you really said is:

“Would you like some comments made by ‘orthodox’ clergy which sound more like Karl Rove or Adolph Hitler than a shepherd. There are several out there; however, I would never use them as normative—they are aberrations, as is the ‘cutesy’ accusation above.”

The only, “someone,” claiming to have heard an orthodox priest make those comments is YOU.  Tell me one of of the, “several out there,” please.

This is starting to remind me of “Billy Madison:”

“What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it.”

This is a little bit of a non-sequitur, but has anyone contacted David Hicks to find out if the account of +Robinson’s speech is accurate? 

I tried searching online, but all I could find was third and fourth hand statements that the speech had been debunked.

Blessings to you, Fr. Woodward.

I believe that you have finally attempted to respond to my invitation simply to stick to the reasonableness of VGR’s consecration; of whether Mr. Robinson’s consecration, mainly the reasons given to justify it, are in fact rational. My invitation came as a result of your public wonderings about what is heterodox about any of this; I believe VGR’s bishopric is demonstrably heterodox to the core and that it has, in fact, been so demonstrated.

Your reply to me, I believe, is found here:

“The reasononableness ... is that the people with whom he [VGR] has worked for so many years have seen the ways God has blessed his work and his presence among them. (Galatians 5). The reasonableness has to do with what they learned from his work and his leadership and his spirituality. The reasonableness is that all Canons of the Church were followed in his election, in the consent to his consecration and to his consecration. What am I missing here? What is the large majority of the Episcopal Church missing here? The reasonableness is the same reasonableness of Reformed and Conservative Judaism in ordaining qualified gay and lesbian Jews as rabbis, because they understand how deep the conflict is between the legal proscriptions and the overwhelming evidence against those laws in the rest of their Scripture.”

I hear you. Gene is a good guy, there is no doubt about it. That itself is a notable thing, but it says nothing about whether he should be bishop. But is this actually about Gene’s goodness; is this what REALLY happened? The politics of the case don’t add up: Gene Robinson’s name was put forward NOT because he was loved but because he was gay. Douglas Theuner, VGR’s predecessor, sought to leave on a memorable note, and he did. The truth is that had VGR not been gay, he most likely would not have been nominated, let alone elected. And I believe he knows this; I believe this haunts him dearly.

But let me admit that this is utterly untrue. OK. Let it be. It is mere rumor.

But your answer in toto is not itself reasonable. In fact, you appeal to the majority of NH voters and Episcopal bishops; doing so is nothing more than the fallacy argumentum ad populum. It does not matter logically what most NH delegates decided; their vociferous support does not prove an argument nor does it bespeak truth. Majorities are often wrong. Besides, since when have progressives cared what majorities think? Are not progressives inherently all about protecting the voice of a minority? Alas, we seem at an impasse: do progressives support the minority voice of gays or the minority voice of conservatives (who really are not fully welcome in this diocese, unlike gays and lesbians, who have always been welcome)?

So, your reasonable response is not reasonable. I await your reply so that perhaps we can get to the heart of the matter: whether reason alone can justify VGR’s consecration.

May the peace of the Lord be always with you,

BG

Milton did you see Tom Woodward’s response to you over at EM?  Unfortunately still no substance.

Jackie, thanks for the heads up.  Actually, he’s responding mistakenly to a different commenter here or to his own comment (!) to me that I pasted from T19 near the top of the thread.  Here’s our latest little exchange:

—————————————————————————-
  Milton said…

  Tom, you commented above:

  “Milton,thank you for praying for my conversion. I have been converted and now believe more than ever in the rightness of what Episcopal Majority is doing. I can’t thank you enough.

  But I do want to thank you for your irenic later response and invitation to dialogue—that is the heart of our calling.”

  Actually I don’t recall praying for your conversion in my comments here or on Stand Firm in Faith. Probably you have me mixed up with the many
  respondents to your comments there.

  What I have asked you for 3 times there is a list of the specific Bible passages that show the conflicts in Scripture that you keep insisting are there. You have avoided doing that so far, though I understand that such a list may take some time to prepare, either from there being numerous conflicts or from there being no conflicts found after a thourough search. If you are indeed preparing such a list and not refusing to back your assertion of conflicts in Scripture, just say so and I will await your compilation eagerly.

  9/02/2006 10:21 PM
 
Milton said…

  Tom, looking at the top of the comments on this thread, actually you prayed for my conversion! Thank you, I can use all the prayers I can get, though I was finally converted to choosing Jesus’ will over my will about 9 years ago!

  9/02/2006 10:25 PM

OK, everyone, let’s all stay focused on the task at hand.  Having spent a good day watching football (and an even better night watching a football movie—Invincible), perhaps we need a referee to throw flags when arguments blur into poor decisions.  If we are charitable, let’s review the exchange between Tony and Tom that led to bringing Adolph into this thread.  Tony wrote, in an aside to Jackie, that he “heard” someone he described as a “lesbian priest” say something outrageous.  Now, he might simply have been wanting to share this anecdote with Jackie, but I think Tom perceived Tony’s point as follows: “All liberals are the same, especially the gay ones, who are really ‘out’ there (pun not intended).”

I think it was reasonable for Tom, given the tone over here, to make that connection.  So then Tom responds by saying, “So what if you heard one lesbian priest say something outrageous, I’ve heard ‘orthodox’ priests say outrageous things, too but I don’t paint them all with that brush.”

I for one have heard orthodox clergy sound a lot like Karl Rove (as in very political and very conservative Republican).  I think Tom’s decision to insert Hitler into the conversation was a poor one, and I for one would be surprised if he actually heard an Episcopal priest who sounded like “Hitler” but he was using an argument—don’t assume that the actions of one apply to the actions of many, which is a good argument.  And for the record, it is one that we on the conservative side need to hear more of, given our fondness for pointing out the extreme elements on the left and simply saying, Q.E.D. 

But let’s bring us all back on track.  Tom, are you willing to concede that there are folks on “your side” of this particular issue whose utterances and behaviors are such that it is reasonable for us on “our side” to question whether we’re all part of the same church?  Again, this is NOT to say that since you have some of these folks on “your side” that everyone on your side shares their views (that was the point you were trying to make with your Rove and that other guy reference).  What would be helpful right now would be for someone representing the Moderate Middle of TEC to say, “You know what, W.G., there are definitely voices on my side of this debate that I recognize are not helpful at holding us together. Please know that those voices do not speak for me and I can understand your concern over the direction they want to take TEC.”

You see, your article that launched a thousand parts (go Matt!) began by focusing on the PERCEPTIONS of the conservatives, and I think you did a good job of understanding how we perceive TEC.  I can appreciate your desire to tell us we are wrong in our perceptions, but first I’d like you to understand and demonstrate that you understand WHY we came up with these crazy perceptions in the first place.  I’m not sure you are there yet, but of course, that’s just my perception.

Dear W.G.,
  Thanks for the clarification. You are right, inserting Hitler into the conversation was dumb.
  To the point you made at the end of your post, how could I not admit there are wacko’s on my side of things. There are wacko’s, there are people who are exploring traditional values in new and unconventional ways who are not wacko’s but seem like wacko’s and there is the enormous mainstream.

I can certainly affirm the words from you posting: “You know what, W.G., there are definitely voices on my side of this debate that I recognize are not helpful at holding us together. Please know that those voices do not speak for me and I can understand your concern over the direction they want to take TEC.”  Thank you for putting the matter so clearly.
Tom Woodward

Dear Tom and WG:
Every issue has extremists.  But if either of you are trying to tar the majority of conservatives with that brush, please allow me to set you straight because that is not the case. 

Are you an extremist because of belief in a physical resurrection?  Are you an extremist because of belief in the Virgin Birth?  Are you an extremist because of belief in the Trinity? 

You what would be real helpful to this conversation?  Why don’t the two of you define what you consider to be an extremist.  Considering the numerous invectives Tom has used to talk to us at Stand Firm, I would really appreciate having that definition. 

It can’t be too hard.  I can name names on the liberal side of the equation.  Let’s see, Bennison, Chane, Heyward, Fox, Bruno…. want me to go on.  It’s a pretty long list.

Re: “Tom, are you willing to concede that there are folks on “your side” of this particular issue whose utterances and behaviors are such that it is reasonable for us on “our side” to question whether we’re all part of the same church?”

Uh.  Widening Gyre? 

TBWSF is one of those folks “whose utterances and behaviors are such that it is reasonable for us on ‘our side’ to question” whether we share the same gospel.

Actually, I am quite confident that we do *not* share the same gospel. 

However, we are in the same institution called the Episcopal church.

The conflict that is now inherent within the Episcopal church has arrived because there are people who hold to two utterly opposing gospels within the same organization.

That conflict will continue for a very very long time, and will also only grow more polarized and heated.

Hence the StandFirm blog . . .

I honestly do not believe that things have by any stretch gotten as bad as they will become.

Jackie, you asked for a list of extremists from the perspective of moderates and liberals. Here are some: Jack Iker, Bob Duncan, Les Fairchild, David Roseberry, Peter Akinola, David Anderson, Robert Gagnon.

Some leaders who share many of the beliefs/views of those above but who are not extremists would include +Ed Little, +Jeffrey Steenson and Kendall Harmon.

The problem comes, as clearly shown in Randy Balmer’s new book on the Evangelical movement, that conservative evangelical religion has become wedded to right wing Republicans.

Episcopal Majority was founded to resist that wedding and the attacks on the Episcopal Church by the ecclesiastical right wing. The Episcopal Church has always provided a place for both Republicans and Democrats as they have worked out their relationship with God and their communities. Nowdays, the self-referenced orthodox are excising the Democrats and the political moderates from the church. What is being attempted in the church is what has been happening in the Republican party, where there has been a near take-over of a reasonable, faithful Republicanism by the marriage of people like Dick Cheney and Karl Rove with the religious right.

My hope for Standing Firm, David Virtue, Brad Drell and the rest is that you would focus your attention on the religious right in your midst who are engineering a take-over of the Episcopal Church. You are wasting your breath on me, Marcus Borg, et. al..

Blessings to you, Fr. Tom,

You surprise me here (again!). I did not think that you were so baldly (I know baldness) political in your positions; nor did I expect you to be so easily plied by those who declaim vociferously against the religious right.

You see, there are many evangelicals moving left; there are the Jim Wallises of the world who very much stick their noses into the political sphere, expecting people to act in a political way more in accord with “the Sermon on the Mount” or some such Christ-inspired reference. Religious leftists, including many evangelicals, denounce the war in Iraq (and elsewhere) as un-Christian; these critics are quick to cite scripture to prove their case that the current administration is not really Christian. I wonder if you know that, according to a C-Span panel discussion on psephology (I’ll let readers run to the dictionaries for this fine word), 25% of the evangelical vote in 2004 went to John Kerry. The bottom line is this: there are leftist religious theocrats all over the media advocating a religious takeover of all things American; it is just a religious takeover of a particularly progressive ilk.

You might like this quote found at the Unitarian Universalist website drafted at its 1996 General Assembly:

‘BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the UUA urges its member congregations and individual Unitarian Universalists to proclaim and promote our principles by becoming active participants in public institutions such as schools, libraries, political parties, and governmental bodies.’ [General Assembly, 1996]

There could not be a more baldly religious statement encouraging the religious leftists among us to take over the political life of the country for religious reasons. In fact, I challenge you to find one mainline DENOMINATION on the religious right that has drafted any similar statement for political activism. Moreover, I beg you to note that the religious right is not a church; it is really more a metaphor than an entity. But the UUA is fully and really a church: It is not a political vagary shaped into the bogeyman as is the elusive “religious right.” The very bottom line is this: religious leftists don’t give one rat’s knuckle for separate of church and state. All that matters is that religious conservativism be banned from the public sphere. The hypocrisy is staggering.

How so many folks don’t know this stymies me. The religious left is not a benign political force. It is essentially political and, since it is inherently progressive, it cannot help but be more aggressively active than any alleged conservative counterpart. Besides, that the UUA, for example, applauds the consecration of VGR is telling; and anyone who is ignorant of the pervasive influence of the UUA in New Hampshire and Massachusetts should not be writing on this topic. The New Hampshire bishop is applauded and lauded by the religious left—and the UU’s in particular—all across this country.

Hence, while one may make a decent case that the religious right is indeed wedded to the Republican Party, a more compelling case can easily be made without writing a book that the religious left has utterly hijacked not only the Democratic Party, but WHOLE CHURCHES.

May Christ bless you richly this day,

BG

Break out the tin-foil… Karl Rove is engineering a takeover of TEC?  Why bring politics into this?  This only confirms my suspicion that most extreme theological liberals in TEC are in fact just political liberals. Why does the Rev Woodward makes such assumptions about the motives of orthodox Christians in TEC?  It’s a nasty political purge eh?  Perhaps he makes this assumption because he’s all too familiar with the motivation on his side…

>>The problem comes, as clearly shown in Randy Balmer’s new book on the Evangelical movement, that conservative evangelical religion has become wedded to right wing Republicans.<<

So it’s the Democratic party you’re worried about instead of the Episcopal Church?????

I would suggest you read a few different books somewhere. I’m orthodox. I’m not Republican. I never have been. If I keep hearing things like this, I will wonder if I should rethink that position.

Since when has our faith become nothing more than a battleground for Democrats and Republicans? And don’t tell me that the orthodox made it so because I’m speaking from within orthodoxy and I know that’s not the case.

Nevin, with you in your remarks above.

Agreeing with Oscewicee that there are certainly people here who are not Republicans!  There are people who do not like this wretched war!  I could say a lot more about this but don’t think our subject here is generally politics.

Rev. Woodward,

I think you fail to recognize how diverse the people are that come to post here on Standfirm.

For example, I am a Democrat, conservative, and a “self referenced” orthodox. No one’s ever required me to show Republican credentials before claiming I was orthodox; so far no parishioners and no conservative clergy in my diocese have even asked about my political leanings.  But they do care about what I preach and teach religion-wise. 

I think it’s a major logical error to assume that the religious right is run by the Republican party.  From what I’ve read of your responses, you take insult at the attitude that “all liberals believe (x) and do (y)” and I believe you’re right to do so. 

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I understand you as saying “the conservatives are being taken over by the Republican party and these new religious conservatives are purging Democrats from TEC.” As I said before, I’m a Democrat, I’m clergy, I’m conservative/ orthodox AND I feel very welcome in the church with other conservatives.  I don’t care what political party they belong to and I think they return the favor.

I don’t think I’m an anomaly- I’ve known many arch-conservatives in TEC who were also Democrats.  In light of this, I would encourage you to reconsider your beliefs regarding religious conservatives and political affiliation.

I appreciate Michael B’s gracious remarks here. I am guilty of making sweeping generalizations, no doubt; but I often do so in order to point out their absurdity. Surely the DNC does not solely consist of religious leftists. Surely the RNC does not solely consist of religious rightists. But the issue at hand here, or so I understand it, is whether the Episcopal Church is espousing heresy. I have suggested that the Unitarian Church is indeed heretical, consists almost entirely of liberal Democrats, and is very much a supporter of VGR. If the consecration of VGR is indeed orthodox, then how is it lauded by Unitarians, who oppose orthodoxies (being essentially anti-credal) and do not accept the hierarchical authorities of episcopal faiths? My other point is that liberal progressives are notoriously silent about their own theocratic ambitions (it was Mr. Woodward, after all, who has been alarmist about the religious right).

Is not the topic at hand whether TEC is falsely accused; is it not about heresy? I am all for staying out of politics. The topic at hand is enough fun for me.

By the way, what does Karl Rove sound like?

Peace and mirth,

BG

Tom Woodward offers up a revealing, if trite, list of who he considers extremists.  One wonders if it’s only personal friendship that keeps Kendall Harmon off the list, since it’s hard to see any daylight between his views and, say, +Duncan’s or Roseberry’s+.

But, what get’s somebody named?  For +Iker, within the context of ECUSA, I presume it’s his refusal to accept women’s ordination.  (Of course, within Catholic Christianity more generally, his views line up with churches representing 97% of the communicants, which makes “extremist” look more like a political description than an accurate one.)  For Gagnon, it’s being in the overwhelming mainstream of New Testament scholarship, but disagreeing with Rev. Woodward’s personal views.  Akinola?  Enough said.  The man could feed the world and the Left in ECUSA would consider him a disciple of the devil.

+Duncan, Roseberry+, Anderson+?  If they’re considered extreme and +Griswold and Mrs. Schori are not, then Rev. Woodward’s original essay seems to have been refuted by the author himself.  But, I invite said author’s response on why these people would be on his list.

This whole liberal/democrat conservative/republican thing doesn’t wash. In the south, historically, the democrats were conservatives and the republicans were considered the liberals. I am a conservative. The republican party now has little to offer a true historical conservative. Since the democratic party has been taken over by the radical left, just as TEC/ECUSA has, a lot of us really have no place to go. When I first hooked up with Episcopalianism 30 years ago, I was a dyed in the wool moderate. Now I am close to having no where else to go theologically or politically.

the snarkster

Wow TBWSF,

The religious right are engineering a takeover of the TEC?!? If they are trying, so far it has been a complete and dismal failure. The institutional machinery is solidly in the hands of the reappraisers, and the few reasserters remaining are just trying to hold on. The power structure of the Episcopal church is split between the institutional liberals and the radicals - the reasserters aren’t even on the radar.

Do you believe the rumors going around about the Christian reconstructionists, whoever they are, undertaking a massive campaign to destabilize all the mainline churches? It that what this is all about?

Fear not! I doubt there are any reconstructionist ‘moles’ anywhere to be found in the reasserting part of the TEC, and we aren’t all republicans either!

Jean (a registered democrat)

Snarkster - I feel exactly the same. Theologically and politically. :-(

Bill Gnade, Please forgive my ignorance but I do not understand much about the Consecration of Bishops and couldn’t help but wonder why Unitarians attended Bishop Robinson’s concecration and why they wished to identify themselves as Unitarians? Were they guests? Did they participate in some way, did they recite The Apostles Creed? Were most of the people attending this Consecration of an Episcopalian Bishop Episcopalians? Did I misunderstand you?

Tom Woodward has persistently repeated the tired accusations that address the current divide in non-theological categories.  To save time, let’s list them all:

1) The spectrum analogy:  It’s a battle between radicals on the extremes with a majority of sane people in the middle.  Guess who gets to be the “moderate” in this discussion?

2) The political analogy: It’s a battle between right-wing extremists and those who care about justice and compassion. Guess who gets to care about justice?

3) The “Fundamentalist” takeover: It’s a battle between historic Anglicans and a “Fundamentalist” takeover.  Guess who gets to be the “historic Anglicans”?

4) The Neo-Puritan judgmentalists vs. the advocates of an accepting “love ethic.”  Guess who gets to be accepting and loving?

There are a couple that I think may have been missed, but I’ll supply them.

5) Inclusiveness and diversity:  It’s a battle between those who want to exclude and divide vs. those who want to affirm and include.  Guess who gets to be inclusive, diverse, and affirming?

6)Oppression and liberation:  It’s a battle between those who want to retain oppressive privilege and those who want to liberate the oppressed.  Guess who gets to be on the side of the oppressed?

What all of these categories have in common is, first, that they’re non-theological.  They are all based on abstractions that are imposed on Scripture and tradition rather than derived from them.  However, unless the disagreement is expressed in fundamentally theological terms, it cannot be addressed intelligibly, let alone resolved.

As I’ve said before, I believe the crucial issue has to do with Christology, and the relation between Christology and the authority of Scripture.  That is: 1) Are the person and work of Jesus Christ uniquely constitutive of salvation such that we can say that Jesus Christ (and only Jesus Christ) saves? 2) Does Scripture provide the normative record and interpretation of the person and mission of Jesus Christ so that, as the person and work of Jesus Christ are constitutive for salvation, so the plain teaching of Scripture is constitutive for our understanding and appropriation of that work?

Or, conversely: 1) Are the person and work of Jesus Christ illustrative of a salvation we can know elsewhere and achieve elsewhere as well? 2) As the person and work of Jesus Christ are illustrative of a salvation we can attain elsewhere, do the Scriptures point to a salvation that we can find elsewhere as well, and, indeed, are correctible by this externally found salvific knowledge?

The second thing that all the categories have in common is that they’re tendentious.  The mere phrasing of the issue in these categories establishes from the beginning a self-assessed moral superiority on the part of those revisionists who do the framing.  From the beginning of the conversation, those who affirm what I’ve called the constituvist position have to fight against the moral equivalent of “Have you stopped beating your wife?”

[For the record, Tom Woodward, my own political position has been influenced most by classic Aristotelian Thomism, the Christian socialism of nineteenth-century Anglicanism, and John Howard Yoder’s and Stanley Hauerwas’s Anabaptist vision of the church.  In shorthand, that means I think that the primary concern of economics, social-sexual ethics, and peace-justice issues should be how they promote the common good and how they affect the poor. In contemporary political categories that makes me a progressive on economics, environmental and peace and justice issues, and a social conservative on sexual issues.  I’m at the opposite extreme from the current default libertarianism that characterizes most public political discourse. At the same time that many of my political ideas would mean more government involvement, however, I think the church as an institution, not individual Christians, should spend more time focusing on its identity as the church, and less time trying to impose its political agenda on the culture.]

If I’m an extremist, then I think I’m in good company with Aquinas, Hooker, Barth, Michael Ramsey, and, yes, Bob Duncan.

I think the conversation would be helped tremendously if: 1) the revisionists would quit posing the disagreement in tendentious abstract categories that provide them with an unassailable a priori moral superiority; 2) address the issue in properly theological terms.  I have found nothing yet that more succinctly states the differences than my own formulation (constitutive vs. illustrative), but I’m open for alternatives so long as they address the issue theologically and as adequately.

Widening Gyre, you must realize that anybody who would identify themselves to be in the “middle” would obviously incur the opposition of both sides.  Let me propose that the Archbishop of Canterbury is the one who is really in the middle, and I understand his comment in his Dutch interview: “I have great concern for the vast majority of Episcopal Christians in the US who don’t wish to move away from the Communion at all, but who don’t particularly want to join a separatist part of their Church either”; at the same time, he refers to the latter group as larger “than some have presented it as being.”  And a great number of those are still trying to find their place.  All these people, a very large group indeed, are “caught in the middle.”  We should not be surprised to be recruited by parties, denominations, church factions, sects, and cults because we are a vulnerable, scattering group! (This may not be the “middle ground” you have in mind, WG, but it is where many people stand.)  Williams, in the quotation above about the majority, does not of course refer to the new “Episcopal Majority” concept but, in my understanding, to those who may be seeking true “Classical Anglicanism” but not finding it in the modern church.  (I gather this meaning from the “Classical Anglicanism” present in his response to the American GC 2006 and elsewhere.)  So, in other words, I submit that we have a much broader arena than the conflict between two blogs, “Episcopal Majority” and “Stand Firm in Faith.”  And YET there is a sense in which this present blogger conversation IS a microcosm of the global struggle; I think that’s why it generates so much heat.  Is there “middle ground” any more?  That I don’t know; it seems not, but God is working something out.  Would that there might be meaningful reconciliations that would not offend consciences, but that would mean enormous changes that do not seem forthcoming in the present American structure.  As the Archbishop has said, “a concern for unity is not about placing the survival of an institution above the demands of conscience. God forbid.”

I am an Episcopalian by ancestry and by choice; I understand the people whose hearts will break (are breaking) to leave their ancestral churches, their dearly-loved church friends, and even some cemeteries and memorials of their closest loved ones—all their ties with the past that were sanctified once like little local habitations for the “communion of saints.”  But it looks as though these people can do no other than suffer these losses.  They feel (like myself) that, rather than absorb apostasy, it would even be better to have no temple made with hands but worship in the clean air (if they could do absolutely no better).  In that I have no time any more for anything but real “Classical Anglicanism” and literally orthodox belief in all the points of the Creeds—and in that I deplore the past relegation of the 39 Articles of Religion to “historical” status—I am here looking for that timeless Anglicanism (and finding it) on “Stand Firm in Faith.”  Although I am brought here primarily by concerns about points of faith and not primarily by behavioral issues—not a “Purity Code” in itself—it is also certain that there is an inevitable tie (almost an umbilical cord, if you will) between points of belief and aspects of behavior.  Williams also pointed this out long ago, recognizing the momentous character (momentous for eternity) of everything we do.  (cont. below)

(cont. from above)
Yes, BOTH sides cross the line (I do not refer to this website); just look at scurrilous things (to say the least) that have been said about the ABC by both (there have been “orthodox” examples on another site).  I am willing to believe that there are sincere souls on both sides.  But I am also wary of agendas that are now flying about us and wary of the danger of colluding with falsehood.  There has been so much under-the-table politics and so much disinformation and silence from the national church, over time, that it would be unwise not to be wary.  (An example has been given regarding RCRC over a period of years.) But I acknowledge that, as far as I know, Fr. Tom did not himself do these things!  If you feel anger from us, Fr, Tom, I hope you will acknowledge that people are rightly outraged with institutional wrongs that were done by somebody (and collectively by many)—are dismayed at pain and suffering that have been inflicted here and abroad by the loss of the church we knew, affecting mission and even impeding the salvation of the discouraged and confused.  Health is affected; lives are shortened; worse, we believe that souls are lost.  If we are overwrought, this is why.  And it seems to me—forgive me if I’m wrong—that the “other side” lacks a sense of tragedy about all this.  But to Fr. Tom: you would seem well-positioned to make a difference inside TEC: so do set about cleaning up the church and setting it back on the beam, and I will certainly applaud that!  I’m not sure where we will all be by that time, but I’ll applaud then in any case, I promise!

Dear Paula,
  I really appreciate your words, just posted. I am well aware of the feelings of betrayal that have hit most of the “orthodox” in our church—some of what they thought was bedrock is no longer there and it seems tied in with morals, with scriptural interpretation and authority and so much more—too much to assimilate.
  That same sense of betrayal has been felt, too, by those on my side of things. We experienced for decades a gospel of Love and of divine love used to marginalize and demonize gay people who had given their lives to Jesus Christ and knew their love for one another to be filled with the Holy Spirit. The struggle for inclusiveness with Blacks in the Episcopal Church was followed by a similar struggle for the full inclusion of women (it is hard for young people to realize how thoroughly women were excluded in the pre-1980’s Episcopal Church) and now we continue to marginalize by exclusion.
  Jackie, I have been involved since 1965 in trying to build bridges between the Episcopal Church and gay communities—and in those years I have seen lives changed by Jesus Christ and so much sheer joy when gay and lesbian people have given up self-hatred (and I mean hatred, not just not liking themselves) upon knowing the love of Jesus for them. I have seen church communities, likewise transformed through becoming inclusive—with people saying, “How could we not have seen and known that these men and women are fully our brothers and sisters and their love for one another in their partnerships have been blessed by God in every way that our own marriages have been except in public ceremonies in the church.” For them and for me, it is a similar feeling of betrayal when a significant part of the church seems to depart from what it had been learning over the past fifty years with Blacks and women.
  I believe very much in an incarnational theology in which God became and becomes incarnate in real relationships—that often has come into conflict with some traditional ways of doing theology (as with Wm. Witt, whom I admire though not agreeing with him).
  Jackie, I am no stranger to tragedy, nor is this “other side” any stranger to tragedy. I believe your words about the betrayal you and others experience and the reasons for being overwrought have been experienced with at least the same intensity by those of us who disagree with you—and might very well use the words you have written so eloquently. This is a time to listen to one another and not a time to isolate.
Tom

Dr. Witt,

I share your dislike for the categories you have identified. 

I do not, however, share your enthusiasm for the criteria you identify as traditional Anglicanism – precisely because within traditional Anglicanism as applied to Scripture, homosexuality is viewed as sinful. 

Apparently the best traditional Anglicanism has to offer homosexuals is to repent of their homosexuality either by going to some program like Exodus or by just abstaining from sex altogether.

But isn’t that your point – those of us who disagree are trying to revise the rules – hence the label revisionists.

As you and our brothers and sisters in Christ here at StandFirm know, I’m sincere in wanting to do God’s will here on earth as it is in heaven.  I see my Christian duty as standing with our homosexual brothers and sisters in Christ.

You and most of the people here see your Christian duty as calling homosexuals to repentance.  You cite traditional Anglicanism as your rationale; I proof text (your characterization) Jesus as mine.  We line up our various scholars, draw our pistols, take 10 paces, turn and …

And what?  I know you want to make it clear that I’m not a traditional Anglican.  That’s OK by me – don’t know for sure if I am or not, don’t really care that much. 

What’s a more important question to me is am I being faithful?  Am I being obedient to God’s will?  I’ve had lots of advice here that if I would just surrender to God I’d see things your way. 

Actually I surrender a lot – do my best to, anyway.  I have surrendered and I don’t see things your way.

I believe I am being faithful and obedient.  No repentance called for with regard to standing up for homosexuals.  So now I go back to a previous question – one that I raised a few weeks back.  I’m returning to the “and what.”

What are the Godly consequences of our disagreement about God’s view of homosexuality.  I would love to hear from a wider cross section of people here at StandFirm.  Dr. Witt, I hope you will not be shy to answer.

My first question is this:  Do you support the decision of several network bishops to refuse Holy Communion to unrepentant homosexuals – to excommunicate them.

My second question is this:  If I were to show up as an unrepentant advocate of a homosexuals fitness to serve as a bishop in this church – doing my level best to be in the eyes of Scripture as traditional Anglicanism interprets – to qualify as a heretic and “notorious evildoer,” if you were the priest or bishop in charge of that communion service, would you refuse to serve me Holy Communion – would you excommunicate me?

You know this is not a game.  Homosexuals have already had communion refused them.

What say ye, StandFirm?  What say you, Dr. Witt?  Do we go forward together as brothers and sisters in Christ who at this point in time happen to disagree on God’s view of homosexual persons?  Or are we revisionists a “cancer” that needs to be cut out of the body of Christ?

ALP,

Speaking as a rector of my own parish only, yes. You would be more than welcome to come and sit and listen and be with us as a community, and those are not just words. If you came to my parish you would be welcomed with love. but as an unrepentant false teacher you would not be welcome to take communion.

Matt,
I appreciate your direct answer. 

As one unrepentant “false teacher” to another, you would be welcome at our parish to receive communion as a brother in Christ with whom (for the time being) I’m having a disagreement about the mind of God.

Tom,
If you have your little black book handy, color me in as an extremist.  And while you are doing it, could you put a big red star next to my name so it signifies that I am humbled beyond belief to be classified with pillars of the faith such as +Bob Duncan, David Anderson+, ++Peter Akinola, +Jack Iker, David Rosenberry+, and Robert Gagon.  I am afraid I don’t know Les Fairchild so I can’t comment.  And Kendall Harmon+, not just a gentlemen but a true scholar and disciple.  I truly believe that the men listed above were born in this day and this age to fulfill the God’s purpose.  Just as Mordecai told Esther, Who knows but that you were born into the Kingdom for just such a time as this!  And I give thanks to God for men such as these and the scores of others that time and space will not permit me to list.

If you really, really want to know what your ministry is doing to the people you think you are helping - go read the comments on the liberal blogs. 

Let me reiterate what Sarah has written - as of right now we are both under one umbrella called the Episcopal Church but we do not share the same Gospel.

Matt, you would stand in judgment in that way with someone who teaches differently than you comes to receive the Body and Blood of Christ—and refuse to communicate us? Am I reading this correctly? You would shun us in front of your congregation because we don’t agree with your narrow understanding of the Christian faith?

This means as an Episcopal priest you would refuse communion to over eighty percent of the sitting bishops in the United States! This strikes me as the height of spiritual arrogance. Who could possibly give you that kind of authority? It is not the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church, not the House of Bishops, the Eames Commission, the Book of Common Prayer, 39 Articles or any other authority in the church.

I suppose this is the logical extension of the arguments in your series. The next step, seriously, is to invite your congregation out to the parking lot to stone those you, without authority, have names as “false teacher.” Do you understand what an affront that is to the Jesus of the Gospels and of the church?

For your sake and for the sake of your web site, I hope no one picks this up and posts it prominently.

Tom

Fr. Tom,

As you know, charity reigns at the altar rail. So I assume that people coming to the altar are coming: 1. having sincerely confessed their sins and 2. at peace with their brothers and sisters. If ALP or you (as Teachers, not laypeople, but teachers), were to present yourself at the altar rail I would assume, charitably, that you have renounced your false teachings. If, however, you were to come successive Sundays without any alteration in your teachings, to the point that it became abundantly clear to me that, in fact, you are not repentant, I would have no choice but to refuse you communion. Of course you would still be welcome to attend and sit under the teaching of the scriptures.

I can assure you, Matt, that every time I have gone to the altar rail, as layperson or priest, I have sincerely confessed my sins and have been at peace with my brothers and sisters.

I do not have false teaching from which to repent—I have much for which to be grateful in being chosen in dioceses as mentor to new clergy, in being published by Episcopal publications, Roman Catholic publications and in such journals as Modern Liturgy, in having books I’ve written praised by conservatives and liberals alike.

I believe your teaching, as evidenced in your last two postings, is a travesty—even of the self-referenced “orthodox” community. You are not above the C&Cs;, the General Convention, The Book of Common Prayer, and the Scriptural admonitions against hubris, pride and a kind of judgmentalism that boggles the mind.

There are safeguards in the Book of Common Prayer against your practice. I can tell you in all honestly, that if I were in your church and you refused me communion under the guise you have proposed here, I would immediately proceed to bring a Presentment against you for conduct unbecoming a priest and for violating the Canons of the Episcopal Church.
Tom

“I do not have false teaching from which to repent…”

that’s the question before us is it not?

In fact, as your own words here have demonstrated, you do.

In biblical terms, this makes you a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” (Matt 7).

This is not my judgement, this is God’s judgement that applies to all who presume to preach and teach against the revealed word of God (Gal 1).

As far as the presentment…bring it.

Interesting to see “repentance” coupled with ‘self-justification”........

sort of, see, I’m not really a sinner, I’ve done all these great things, and people have complimented me on it.

Hmmmmmmmmm.

Matt, unfortunately, you do not have the authority to make those determinations. You have not privileged pipeline to God’s judgments. Because I disagree with your narrow vision of the Episcopal Church does not make me a wolf in sheep’s clothing.”

You certainly have a spiritual arrogance and disregard of the teachings of this church, plainly explicated in The Book of Common Prayer which should be repented.

Believe me, the last thing you want is to face a Presentment in the Episcopal Church. For you, it would be a martyr’s way—it would be enormously costly in time and money and in every other way. I would not wish it on you—but if you would attack me by refusing communion to me or anyone who came to your altar rail in good faith, but in disagreement with your peculiar teaching I and almost any other priest I know would be duty bound to have you disciplined by your bishop or to bring a Presentment against you. It’s OK to write to a blog, but it is not OK to violate our ordination vows.
Tom

>I think the conversation would be helped tremendously if: 1) the revisionists would quit posing the disagreement in tendentious abstract
categories that provide them with an unassailable a priori moral superiority; 2) address the issue in properly theological terms. 

Dr. Witt, this seemed to bear repeating.

ALP, Tom:  Just as a matter of perspective, vis-a-vis communion: I was reared as a Missouri Synod Lutheran.  Our custom was, when visiting a different church, we were to speak with the pastor before the service if we wished to receive.  I have known Lutheran pastors to skip someone at the rail if they did not recognize them.  When I first went into the Army in 1966, my home church pastor gave me a “communion card”, which I presented to the Lutheran pastor at the church near where I was stationed, to show the pastor I was a confirmed communicant in good standing, and to have the card initialed by the pastor to show my home church.  Only Lutherans in good standing were allowed to commune, as LCMS practices closed communion.  When I began dating my wife, my mother was horrified to learn that Episcopalians would let me recieve, without being confirmed as an Episcopalian.  When I took confirmation classes as a lad of 13, I was thoroughly inculcated in that doctrine and practice.  I carefully examined myself the week before communion (once a month) and made sure I had repented, and was reconciled with Christ, as well as my fellows. So, now we have a different view of who should be allowed to receive.  See, Matt+ is not nearly so restrictive as you think…

Fr. Tom,

Sorry, I simply will not allow you or any other false teacher access to the flock while I am pastor.

The actual rubric I would use is the one, of which you are well aware, that refers to notorious sinners presenting themselves at the rail.

El Jafe—just to be clear—are you saying you would or would not refuse me communion in the circumstances I described above?

Oscewicee—I’m glad you can quote Dr. Witt.  Are you saying you don’t like the question?  I’d really like to hear from more people than Matt and I really apprecicate Matt going first.  But ...

What would you do if your were the priest at the altar?  Would you refuse to serve me communion?

ALP+ : as I am not clergy, I obviously am in no position to refuse you communion.  If I were a Lutheran minister in Missouri Synod, however, I would have no choice, as you are not a member in good standing of an LCMS congregation.  Now, to the real meat of your question, If I were an Episcopal priest, I would not refuse you communion because we hold different opinions.  However, if you or another were to be identified as notorious and unrepentant sinners, then I would feel bound to refuse you the sacrament.  In accordance with my understanding of scripture,that would include either heterosexual or homosexual persons cohabiting in a non-celibate relationship, or any clergy who officiated at a blessing or consecration of a same-sex union.  Excommunication, or disfellowshipping is, in my understanding, a tool to get the attention of the offender, to persuade him or her to return to the fold and repent. 
Tom+: What is your opinion of excommunicating a vestry member who is in disagreement with her fellow members over these very matters?  This was done in a parish in DoW, with the priest in charge reading the prayer book rubrics.  I don’t want to get into the specifics of the case here, but it is well documented.  What would the difference be here if Matt+ refused you the sacraments?

ALP, I am behind in the conversation and was when I posted. My quoting of Dr. Witt was inspired by a message from Fr. Tom farther back. My quick answer to the question now that I have caught up is that I am a sinner and have great need of repentance and forgiveness - even at times when I don’t know that I do - and I trust that that may be true of you as well. I am no priest, but I would kneel beside you at the rail and trust that we seek, however unwisely at times, the same forgiveness, the same healing and the same reconciliation. I would share communion with you. If I were a priest, I am not sure that I would ask you to speak to my church. I don’t think I could deny you communion.

I hope you don’t find that in the push to accommodate the homosexual lifestyle - and I believe the sincerity of your motives - but in the push to make this accommodation before the mind of the church is known, I hope you don’t find that you have thrown out so much of the church that there is nothing left to offer the people who come.

El Jefe and oscewicee—thanks for your thoughful replies.  Fellow sinners should be at the altar together—Christ bids us all to confess, repent, and come to the table.  We repent of the sins that God makes us aware of.

I believe at every communion Jesus ministers to people who are without exception guilty of sins both known and unknown—not confessed and still practiced.  Yet His offer is, “Come to my table.”

Fr. Tom, ALP and several others on this thread.  As a layperson a dishonest priest has threatened me with excommunication.  Its a long story which I will not present in this open forum.  I would like each of you clergy to truly “listen” to this comment. 

Many other Episcopalians and I will never kneel down in front of another deacon, priest or Bishop without clearly understanding their personal theology and their relationship with Jesus Christ.  The lack of trust, respect and extreme sadness which has occurred in my spiritual life beginning just before GC 2003 has changed my life forever.  If you won’t tell me, then I don’t believe you.

This simple comment is what is important and what many of you do not get.  Will I accept communion from you?  Irreparable damage has occurred for me and many other Anglicans.

Re: “Believe me, the last thing you want is to face a Presentment in the Episcopal Church. For you, it would be a martyr’s way—it would be enormously costly in time and money and in every other way.”

Wait—what are the disadvantages to being presented?  ; > )

From my understanding—it’s costly to the Episcopal church. [check]

Rich in media publicity. 
[check]

Demonstrates the rank bullying of revisionists in ECUSA.
[check]

And gets a priest happily out of the Episcopal church but with his orders recognized by most of the other Anglican provinces.
[check]

ALP,

Just to be clear. You said: “We repent of sins that God makes us aware of…”

I agree.

And yet “ignorance” is not always exculpatory.

Take for example the man who was having relations with his father’s wife Cor 5. Obviously the community did not think that what they were doing was wrong. In fact Paul says that they were “proud.”

Nevertheless, Paul excommunicated the man and the woman. Ignorance was not exculpatory.

The fact that they failed to recognize their sin did not mean that they were to be communed.

In the same way, were an adulterer to present himself at the altar rail with his mistress in front of the entire congregation with his wife present, there would be little choice but to refuse to commune him despite the fact that the man would obviously “believe” himself to be acting rightly.

The problem, in both cases, is that the people in question (the adulterer in my example and the man in 1 Cor 5) are transgressing “revealed” law. There is no need for guesswork; no need to ask “is this person committing a sin?” It is an objective fact.

The same is true, I would argue, of false teachers. Those who teach a gospel other than the gospel delivered by the apostles are anathema (gal 1) and, according to St. John, are not to be given the hospitality of the community (2 John).

“8 Watch yourselves, so that you may not lose what we [1] have worked for, but may win a full reward. 9 Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, 11 for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.”

Les Parker—Jesus specializes in irreparable damage.  Wherever you find him, that’s where you need to be for now.

Sarah Hey—Love your checks.  I would not join Fr Tom on the presentment trail—even if he sees it as his duty.  I’d urge not going that route—too many checks.

Whatever strength may be in my small, proof-texting brain, something about “strength being made perfect in weakness” comes to my mind. I’m coming after y’all with all the kindness I can muster.

Matt:  I’m sure glad I remember Jesus saying something about rich people, eye of needle—with men, impossible but with God all things are possible.  I’m hanging my hat on that last one.

I’m jumping back to the conversation before the question of communion arose, so forgive me.

First, Tom, I appreciate your response.  I found it very helpful and I reiterate another person’s comments that you appear to have an important role to play in all this. 

Second, Jackie, the entire point of my conversation about Tom and Tony’s back and forth was to criticize using the extremist brush to paint everyone else on a particular side.  I was glad to see that Tom agreed that inserting Hitler into this conversation was a poor decision on his part. 

Third, while the communion discussion is interesting and certainly important and definitely “good copy,” I feel it is a little off topic for this particular thread, which is about how we on the conservative side are perceived by the middle/left.  Talk of refusing communion is certainly not going to be perceived well (or well received) over on the other side.

Now before Matt gets all “withering criticism” on me, I’ll be the first to quote the great line from Michael Been’s last great album in which he proclaimed that “Truth is truth and it must offend.”  Derek Webb had similar lines on his “She Must and Shall Go Free” album.  I just get a little uncomfortable now, knowing how I daily offend my God.  Dang this glass house! Is it possible to deliver the Truth in love, when you know how much the Truth is going to hurt the recipient/friend/brother or sister in Christ? I know I too often deliver the Truth in arrogance or in pride and fail to remember that we are called to be lovers of men and women, not lovers of causes.  Sorry for stepping on the soap box; it’s been a long weekend and it ain’t over yet.  Peace to y’all.

Father Tom,

Please re-read your last several posts, and consider retracting some of your statements. By my reading, you would have no problem using institutional means to punish reasserter priests with whom you have theological differences. Do you really want to project the image of a bully? I really hope your words are just emotional hyperbole, and not “what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart”.

Jean

Matt—have you ever wondered why Jesus was so fond of reminding folks who thought they had it all figured out that God had surprises ahead for them—that was when he wasn’t ticked at them and using harsher words.  This morning didn’t he remind some who had it all figured out that Isaiah had said, “Your lips are full of God talk, but you are keeping God out of your hearts.”

You are clearly a good and decent person.  But all that figuring you’ve done may just jump up and bite you one day.  If I may quote to you from ALP 19:37:  Whatever goes around, comes around.  Be careful what you set in motion.

Thank you for sharing that Fr.Matt,you’re totally on target.
My question to both learned gentlemen of the cloth is,given your erudition and abundant knowledge not to mention years in seminary and pastoral work;how could you plead ignorance regarding heresy and sexual adventurism(ie sin) in the
light of Scripture’s doctrinal and ethical teaching?
When I graduated from seminary we knew the Scripture’s imperatives and never availed ourselves of that form of escapism.

Dear Betty See,

My referring to the presence of Unitarian Universalists at the consecration of VGR was on point: under discussion here (in theory) is whether TEC is/was heretical, particularly in the aforementioned consecration. I made my first mention of the UU presence at VGR’s installment far up this discussion thread.

The question remains: is TEC heretical or not? Fr. Woodward continues to treat me as if I do not exist; he need not recognize me if he wishes otherwise, but his is the sort of hospitality that is reminiscent of the spirit of my diocese. While Gene Robinson speaks of “radical hospitality”, it seems he and his supporters are only hospitable to fellow radicals. That Fr. Woodward has not acknowledged a single remark by me indicates that I am not worthy of being recognized, marginalized as I am. So be it, and God bless him. I expect nothing from him. But I expect a lot from myself: the most loving and respectful thing I can give him is the acknowledgment of his existence. I have given him that, and more. That’s what it means to be radically hospitable, at the very least. Related to that is staying on topic, and I have done that too.

The presence of UU’s at VGR’s consecration elicits at least one question: How come they were there? But that is not my main concern. My main concern is that the progressives in TEC are indeed Unitarian Universalists in vestments. If I go to just one website in the New Hampshire diocese, just one, like this one, I find a church committed to “inclusion”, which is a faddish designer word; I find that the parish (much to the delight of the Bishop?), is committed to “the practice of Christianity as outlined in The Eight Points”; and I find that the website leads off with a link to information about medicare and also invites people to the parish’s Free Trade Coffee Fellowship, complete with Bishop’s Blend coffee beans; in other words, I find a parish rife with political rhetoric and a heavily Unitarian bent (The Eight Points could hardly make a Unitarian happier).

And if I go to the DoNH website; if I click on its recommendations for evangelism for 2006, I discover that the vision of evangelism is curiously void of any mention of Jesus Christ by name, though Marcus Borg’s name is prominent. In fact, even in its evangelism mission statement Jesus is not mentioned.

In short, I would find few differences, other than ceremonial and formal ones, between much of TEC-NH and nearby UU societies. In fact, anyone would be hard pressed to see what is different between The Eight Steps and the UUA principles.

So, Betty See, I do not know if I’ve made myself any clearer. I do not know what the UU’s said or did at the VGR consecration; I merely witnessed their support of it. Surely all gathered there were invited to participate in the liturgical responses. So perhaps UU’s joined the chorus of approval. Surely they did so from their own pulpits.

Peace to you, forever.

BG

Paddy—same question backatcha with regard to Scripture’s doctrinal and ethical teaching. 

I take it that since Matt is totally on target, you would refuse me communion.  Did I understand you correctly?

Yes Sir,I Would.
And for the same reasons that Fr Matt would.
But,then again,if you wanted roll the dice to see if 1 Cor.11:27-30 were true…....
I’m of the mindset that even as God is a God of grace,He is also a HOLY God and I wouldn’t want you to take your life in your hands.
We just had the carpet cleaned and gurneys make such ruts.

Boy, has this thread gotten interesting!  I never knew that anyone was ever refused communion in TEC.  I’ve read the rubrics and BCP on the matter and like especially the quaint “notorious liver” passage, but just thought it was a bygone relic and like the Bible had no use in this new thing church.  Excommunication means literally refusal to receive communion.  In ECUSA, who has the authority to do this?  Does it have to be adjudicated or voted on or is a priest empowered to do this?  I had a very close friend who was a Lutheran minister.  We had long rich theological discussions but he could not give me communion because I was not a Lutheran.  I understood and accepted it as just the manifestion of the divisions in the Body of Christ that will exist until the second comming when all the Church will once again be gathered together.  The RCC would not allow me to the rail.  I asked a high up RCC priest what they would do about the politicians that promoted abortion and voted for it.  He said that they had “excommunicated themselves.”  I would not take communion at an Episcopalian church for the apostacy.  If an Episcopalian came to our church he or she would be talked to by our elders and if it was perceived that they were in the faith would be welcomed.  In the early church believers carried letters to vouch fro their credentials.  I think now it is a pro forma book keeping formality for transfer of membership.  Many churches practice closed communion so if the Apostle Paul came in he could not take communion.  I believe a modified “close” communion is best.  Also, as believers we are warned about communing with the lost and wicked.  It can be dangerous.  Maybe some one can enlighten me about the practical outworking of this in the Anglican Communion.

Paddy, thanks for being crystal clear.  God bless you.

You’re welcomed ALP,but could you please answer my earlier question?
It was regarding an earlier comment of your’s in the thread,thank you.

Dear Bill G,
  I don’t know how I missed your comments or questions for me—they may be on a string that I haven’t gotten back to. If you can remember what they were, let me know here or on my email:
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
  At nearly every ordination and consecration there is an effort to have dignitaries from other denominations or faiths present. That Unitarians were present at VGR’s consecration is normal—some were probably present at Bob Duncan’s or Jack Iker’s consecrations.
 
Jean—I hope I haven’t been bullying. I did state what the rules are regarding property. It’s in the Constitution and Canons. There is no wiggle room. All I did was to assert, with C&C, that those who leave The Episcopal Church for any reason will not be able to take the property. It belongs to the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of PECUSA.
    As to the presentment, I said I would attempt such if any priest were to deny me communion because they believe they are orthodox and I a heretic. Priests who would do that should not be a position to cause such injury. Priests who abuse children should not be able to function as priests. Any kind of abuse by a priest—whether refusing communion to a priest in good standing, stealing money from the church or physically or sexually abusing people—should disqualify a priest or bishop from exercising his or her priestly functions. Did I charge Matt with any of these? No. He said he would refuse me communion because it is his opinion that I, a priest in good standing, am a “false teacher.” I simply said, do that and you will face charges—whether from me or your bishop.

Matt, just acknowledge that you made a terrible mistake. You want to label me as a “false teacher” or something similar and refuse me, a priest in good standing, communion. That is absolutely wacko and I believe you know that—you have painted yourself into a corner. I will stand with my belief, well known and respected throughout the church over against your (my judgment) childish judgment. I will stand with Network bishops Duncan, Steenson, and Little and with John Liebler, President of the Standing Committee of Central Florida, Kendall Harmon of SC, David Virtue of Virtueonline and with countless others you, in your misplaced zeal, probably believe will condemn me.
    Criticize me and my writing all you want, but you have stepped over an important line.
Tom

Prophet Miciah—some 30 years ago another Episcopal priest and I were invited by the Jesuit priest-in-charge of a Roman Catholic parish to be guests at the dedication of their new building.  Their bishop was to preside.

My Episcopal colleague suggested that we both belong at the altar rail for the sacrament along with the Roman Catholic faithful.  We were both communicated by the bishop without incident.

We were both known in the community as Episcopal clergy.

At our church when strangers are present, during announcements we express the view that all baptized persons are welcome to receive—we also invite the unbaptized to come forward to receive a blessing in lieu of the sacrament.

I believe our practice is typical of the Episcopal parishes that I’m familiar with.

In one way, I envy our OT forbears.  Coming to the tent of meeting or to the temple to worship always involved animal sacrifice.  They would have to go through their flocks to choose the best animal, feed and care for the animal, manually transport the animal, and give it to the priests.  That’s a lot of intentional preparation in order to come to worship.  Today, our sacrifice is a broken spirit and contrite heart (Ps 51:17).  I suspect that if we as Christians were to focus the same attentiveness in preparation for coming to the altar as the OT Jews did, our worship would be transformed.  I shudder to think how little preparation of heart I have so often brought to the altar.  May we all work out our salvation in fear and trembling.

Changing the subject back to Matthew 25.
Father Tom has been at a disadvantage because there have been so many commenters that he has responded to alone.  I hesitate to add another but feel compelled to refute any misperceptions.
He said, “It troubles me to see little about responding to the call of Jesus to serve the poor in a blog with your title.”  He again is at a disadvantage because he only know us through our words on the blog, which is an incomplete picture.  Because it might be embarassing for everyone involved to list individual ministries to the poor, I’ll simply respond in a general corporate way.  The board members of SF Mississippi have ongoing commitments to the poor, including, but not limited to, extraordinary efforts in Katrina recovery, a parish-based soup kitchen in the Mississippi delta, funding and managing an after-school tutoring program, serving on the boards of many charities with domestic and foreign ministries, overseeing a family charitable trust, and donating money from earned incomes.

Paddy, in my mind “sexual adventurism” does not equate to homosexuality.  Without knowing exactly what you mean by sexual adventurism, I suspect that it is a sin shared by homosexual and heterosexual people.  No heresy there.

If you wish to describe me as heretical because I find no sin whatsoever in homosexuality that is your judgment—it may not be God’s.

Although you can line up the “clobber passages” and march them around for a while, it seems to me that you do so at the expense of the heart of the gospel that Jesus proclaimed.  I simply find the “clobber passages” uninspired.  The attempts to defend them I find equally uninspired.  That’s how.

Let’s see if I’ve got this right.  This whole thing got started because Tom Woodward claimed he was a moderate and was sick and tired of being called otherwise by nutcase right-wingers.  Since then, he’s thrown cold water on the Virgin Birth, denied the bodily resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and called Episcopalians that stand in the Anglican tradition prior to the glorious ‘60s racists, misogynists, Nazis and Karl Rove-type operatives.  He’s demonstrated his priestly modesty by bragging about his pedigreed education with the insinuation that most others are unworthy to challenge his oddball theology.  And, he’s carelessly trotted out discredited New Testament scholarship, only to be promptly embarrassed each and every time by Bill Witt and Matt Kennedy.

And it’s Fr. Matt that’s painted himself into a corner?

Beam me up, Scotty.

Phil—and the response on the transponder, “Aye, Captain ... oh no, it’s Denny Crain!”

To all:  hope more of you will take a shot at the would you communicate me questions.  It’s late on my end of North America.  For now I’m off for a few hours sleep.  I’ve enjoyed the evening.  Again, thanks to all.

Tom,
You claim your purpose is to be a “bridge.”  What you fail to understand is there is no way to bridge the divide between us.  You have a different Gospel - plain and simple.  You can wrap it up with pretty paper and bright bows - but no way around it—different Gospel.  You believe there are other ways to the Father.  I choose to believe Scripture which says - I am The Way, The Truth and The Life - no one comes to the Father except through me.  You bring up creative and new age readings of Scripture that you and 2 other New Age preachers seem to think is great. 

I said this about 100 posts ago - you are welcome to believe anything you want.  It’s a free country.  However, stealing a religion to legitimize a New Age philosophy just ain’t gonna get it. 

And you keep talking about the property.  Have you read ANY of the court cases lately?  You might want to call Jon Bruno and get his take on things.  But heh if you 815 types want to donate it all to the lawyers - go for it.

ALP,Sexual adventurists come in both heterosexual and homosexual packages,the sexual adventures being sex outside of marriage between husband and wife(man and woman version only thank you).You may not appreciate that but that’s the way God set it up whether you or Father Woodward or Susan Kaeton or Louie Crew like it.Started in Genesis,it still applies and if people want to call me a Neanderthal Fundie for that,no problem.I’ve been called a lot worse

My bad,sexual adventurers rather than sexual adventurists

There is nothing to admit Fr. Tom. I simply responded honestly to the question. Nor is there any “judgementalism” in my response.

I am not presuming, nor would I, to say that you are any worse a sinner than I. In fact, I am certain that I am one of the worst. I know. I have to live with me.

At the same time there are revealed laws that, as a pastor and priest, I am bound to uphold despite the fact that I my self am a sinner.

Going back to my previous example, as much as I love my brother who brings his mistress to Church and presumes to come to the altar with her in front of his wife, as pastor and priest, I cannot allow it. He is visibly and notoriously transgressing the law of God.

The same is true for a false teacher or any other brother or sinner living in open and notorious transgression. Fr. Tom by every biblical standard, you have become a false teacher…publicly and notoriously so. To commune you would be to violate Matt 7:15, Galatians 1, 1st Cor 5, 2 Peter 2, 2 John 8-11, Jude.

Words have consequences. In the Church, they have eternal consequences, both for the speaker and the hearer. Who knows how many people your teachings have led away from Christ?  You would do the same at my parish over my dead body.

Whether those people you mention in your post would agree with me is not my concern. My responsibility is to protect my people. I answer to God for that, not to anyone else. So, frankly, I don’t care whether they would agree.

I would expect, pray and hope that should I turn heretic, or should I fall into another notorious sin, that my brothers would love me and love the Church enough to discipline me and, thereby, bring me back to the fold.

Also I am not “abusing” you. Give up the “child abuser” comparison it is as ludicrous as it is hyperbolic. The truth is that your teachings are an abuse of the Word of God and a grave danger to any flock.

You may bring me up on presentment, but it certainly won’t get very far.  Trust me.

“Excommunication means literally refusal to receive communion.  In ECUSA, who has the authority to do this?”

The priest has authority to do this, but must notify the bishop within 14 days (see Disciplinary Rubrics, BCP p. 409) and give the reasons for refusal.

One more technical update. I HOPE to get the next installment out today, but it could be tomorrow. I forgot the need to spend time with my family today.

“I do not, however, share your enthusiasm for the criteria you identify as traditional Anglicanism – precisely because within traditional Anglicanism as applied to Scripture, homosexuality is viewed as sinful. “

I notice how quickly the attempt I raised to address a properly theological question (constituvist or illustrativist notions of Christology) has quickly been reverted by our two ilustrativsts to the abstract category of inclusiveness.  And who gets to be uninclusive (and therefore “wacko” in the words of the so-inclusive and compassionate Fr. Tom)?

The issue of communion is an important one.  I refer you to Werner Elert’s classic work: Eucharist and Church Fellowship in the First Four Centuries.  Historically, the orthodox do not share communion with heretics.

Part of the problem is that because of lack of clerical and theological discipline for the last forty years, TEC/ECUSA has become a mess, and there are no clear standards about who is and is not in communion.  Practically, as a lay person during this interim period of sorting out who will and will not ultimately be in communion with the Anglican Communion, I have had to deal with this question by making a decision not to attend any parish that is not firmly committed to orthodox Christianity.  I will not receive communion from any priest whom I believe is not committed to the same.  And I certainly will not receive communion from most bishops in TEC.  For family reasons, I lived in Arizona for the last few months.  Because the only ACN parish was four hours away I attended a Lutheran parish that indicated on its website that it was firmly committed to the infallibility of Scripture and the Book of Concord.

I would not receive communion from ALP nor from Fr. Tom Woodard.

The question of to whom the priest gives communion is largely a pastoral one, to be decided on a case by case basis.  Most who come to the communion rail (including myself) struggle with some besetting sin. Regular communion is one of the ways of dealing with this.  As the Fathers said, the eucharist is the soul’s medicine.  At the same time, approaching the altar rail because one knows one is a sinner and needs forgiveness and healing is very different from approaching the altar rail refusing to admit that one’s sin is sin.  So whether or not a priest would give communion to someone engaging in a besetting sin would largely depend on what the priest knew about the communicant’s attitude to the sin.  Was it public, adn thus a scandal?  Is the communicant trying to make a politctal statement by pointedly trying to advertise that he disagrees with the church’s teaching?  Or rather, does the communicant recognize his failure, struggles to overcome temptation, and yet once again has failed?

And, of course, if I were an orthodox priest in a revisionist diocese, I would not be attending or participating in most diocesan functions, and I certainly would not be sharing communion with heretical priests or bishops.  It’s probably good that I’m not ordained.  It saved me the trouble of presentment for “abandoning the communion.”

Jackie, I have read the court cases and I know the Supreme Court case as well as the many State cases on which they have been decided. Our national church has won an overwhelming number of the cases and those it hasn’t, such as in Los Angeles where a lower court decided differently, are being appealed.  The law is clear—and the Network people who have been spreading rumors that it is not have not done their people any favors.

Also, FYI, most of the attorneys representing us as the national church are working pro bono. They have pledged their time and resources to protect our assets from being taken by people who have left the Episcopal Church.

Matt, you have taken the notion of spiritual arrogance to a new level. It seems to me that you have elevated yourself to a position just a little higher than Jesus in making the judgments you make about me and others. In a few words, someone needs to protect your congregation from your false teaching. You misread Scripture. It would be interesting for you to share this thread with your bishop. The charges you make are reckless and just plain foolish. Reading one of your sermons, I thought “How easy it is for frightened people to buy into this, because it is based not on gospel, but on fear.” It had all the marks of The True Believer. I grieve for your people.

Phil, I said none of those things of which you accuse me. Period.

Dr. Witt,
  I believe you and Matt have seriously misunderstood the notion of “heretic.” Neither you nor he has the authority to label anyone so, and in labelling me ALP and the large majority of the Episcopal Church as such, you have both put yourselves outside the Anglicanism you profess to protect.
  The church universal decreed quite early that “the unworthiness of the minister does not affect the efficacy of the sacrament.” By picking and choosing from whom you will receive communion, you are placing yourself above the disciplinary tradition of the church. Your practice is well known in some Holiness churches. Eventually, you get down to a point where you would receive communion from only one person, yourself, because no one will meet your standards. The problem, of course, is that as a layperson you cannot consecrate the elements and were you a priest, you may not consecrate without at least one other person present.

  My advice, particularly to you and to Matt, is to be careful in throwing around the word “heretic.” When used against any who make their living in working for the church, it is actionable for damages.

No Tom,

Jesus has revealed his Word. By your rejection of it, you have, as John says,  essentially judged yourself.

I do pray that you will repent and recant of your teachings so that we can renew our Eucharistic fellowship. Until then I will pray for you.

As for arrogance…well I suppose you are welcome to your opinion, but the ease and surety with which you dismiss the Word of God for which saints and martyrs have spilled their blood and your disregard for 2000 years of Tradition speak for themselves. 

Sadly, I have not shared Eucharistic fellowship with my bishop since 2003. He has graciously decided not to force the issue. He has visited my parish for his canonically required visitations, but he, again, graciously agreed not to celebrate or preach.

Be assured, he knows my stand and that of my parish very well.

Anyone who reads the prayerbook will (as Tony pointed out above) be well aware of the authority rectors have in this regard.

Fr. Tom, please don’t trot out the tired “donatism” canard.

No one is suggesting that the sacraments you offer are invalid because you are a heretic.

They are certainly valid as the Articles of Religion declare.

Nevertheless, discipline must be maintained (as they also declare) which is why the bible and the prayerbook give authority to pastors not to commune heretics and false teachers.

As far as your legal/canonical threats, please, Tom, empty threats make you look silly. If you want to charge me with something, please do so and stop talking about it.

Dear Fr. Woodward,

Blessings again!

You need not respond to me; I extend to you that simple courtesy. I hold you under no obligation whatsoever.

Every question I have posed to you can be found in this thread. I don’t believe they are THAT hard to find; this comment is my seventh. But I thought you actually replied (without naming me) to one of my comments; I guess I was mistaken. I responded as if you had (in my comment #3).

As for your observation that the Unitarian Universalists may have been merely one group of many non-TEC clergy in attendance at any given consecration ceremony is a good and true point. However, in the case of VGR’s consecration, this was not about clergy merely attending an Episcopal liturgical ceremony; this was about aggressive solidarity and celebration. These were not merely UU clergy members attending as quiet outside witnesses; these were clergy and non-clergy turning out to celebrate, not the installation of a Christian man to ministry, but the installation of a gay man to a position of public prominence. That New England’s most prominent conservative clergy members were absent; that the region’s most liberal and clearly heretical religious were present, indicates that something is amiss. Perhaps you do not think so. Again, I am fine with that. But the difference between TEC and the Unitarian Church is increasingly becoming less distinct and less substantive. TEC is rendering itself superfluous: we already have churches that proclaim, not the Spirit of God, but the spirit of the age as if it was God. When we dress Unitarianism in vestments we do not have Episcopalianism; we merely have Unitarianism in fancy threads. The outside of the cup looks Christian, but to hell with the inside.

G. K. Chesterton wrote “When the word ‘orthodoxy’ is used here it means the Apostles’ Creed, as understood by everybody calling himself Christian until a very short time ago and the general historic conduct of those who held such a creed.” It amazes me how many of my fellow Episcopalians do not believe anything in any creed. Of course, no one epitomizes this sort of orthodox agnosticism better than Gene Robinson, who let us all know that it is OK to believe only those parts of the creed which we find palatable. This is the pastoral spirit of the age, and it is increasingly the pastoral spirit of TEC. Sadly, it is the same spirit as the Unitarian Church.

Really, it could be well-argued (I believe Edward Norman does so in “Anglican Difficulties”) that the only orthodoxy that the Anglican Communion has held is ecclesiastical indecisiveness. Everyone is afraid to uphold orthodoxy, for to do so would be to force a choice. No one wants to “divide” when, in fact, division is good (and even biblical). What we see working alleged wonders in TEC is all so much capitulation in the name of that love which is not really love. 

Peace to you this glorious day,

BG

Dr. Witt, that is my point exactly.

We all struggle with sin in our lives. The question is whether our stance toward it. I have a number of parishioners struggling with serious besetting sin. The point is that they are actively struggling. They humble themselves before the Word of God. They do not think that their pariticular sin is “blessed”.

Interesting that Tom believes in the infallilibility of the Canons more fervently than in the infallibility of the Bible!

You said it so well.

Re: “You may bring me up on presentment, but it certainly won’t get very far.  Trust me.”

Blast!

Matt, for the good of the national media publicity and the amusement of traditional Episcopalians, don’t you think that a presentment could go far?  Please????

I am positively salivating.

I wonder if there were any unrepentant sinners at the feeding of the 5,000.  Certainly Judas was served by our Lord Himself at the last supper.

Maybe Jesus didn’t get it and the disciples did!

I love the Judas argument. It does tend to put the cards on the table. So what if we’re betraying Christ, Judas did it and Jesus still offered him communion.

The problem is that it is a false comparison. If someone told me: “I’m planning to cheat on my wife Monday.”

I would seek to disuade him. But until he actually does the deed, I would communion him in hopes that he might change his mind at the last minute. Judas, however, did not change his mind. He planned to betray and then carried out his plan.

Afterwards the only way back would have been to repent.

He decided to kill himself instead. I pray he repented before he took his life.

As for the feeding of the five thousand, here is no way for us to know. But, see my comments above with regard to charitable assumptions.

Tom,

It has been interesting for us laity to watch priests scuffle. But the bottom line for some of us is that the gay-sex issue is merely the tip of the iceberg. Below the waterline lurks denial of the virgin birth, toying with the Trinity, demotion of the Articles, etc., ad absurdum. Those of you who would lead TEC away from catholicity towards New Agism (ala ?Spong) are false teachers that I am glad to see would be refused communion by those charged with defending the faith handed down.

Matt:  Interesting cerebral gymnastics—I’ll give you a 9.8.  This is my way of suggesting that you are rationalizing and doing it very well.

My own cerebral gynmastics show me a Jesus (who if he viewed sacramental table fellowship as I understand your view)—a Jesus who would tell Judas to leave the table, be on his way, and do what he had to do.  Scripture is very clear that Jesus knew who would betray Him.

Jesus knew who would betray him, but he didn’t make him Bishop! (or is that bishop?)

Matt,
  Jesus would be proud of the increasing numbers of people you exclude! Unfortunately, that is Jesus of Hebron. Jesus of Nazareth took quite a different position, but who is He?

  “Infallibility of the Bible?” I don’t think so, neither do any of the scholars you, Witt and others cite. I cite the Canons of the church because they are the rules for being Episcopalian. I believe you have left the church, Matt, so they aren’t important to you, but if you are going to use this church for Pension Fund purposes, these are the rules.

  No wonder you see heretics beneath every bed, believing in the infallibility of the Bible. May you get rest from your fears.

  BG, most prominent New England clerics were absent from the consecration? We must have different lists. Also, for you to attribute motives for UU people attending? For shame! Do you do the same for the Presbyterians, Roman Catholics, etc.. Don’t give up your day job to become a psychic - seriously, I have appreciated your irenic tone until your last post.

Lastly, Matt. I am not going to charge with a presentment and never suggested that I would—unless by some odd circumstance I ended up in your church and you publicly refused communion to me on the basis of your odd sense of heresy or false teaching. Then I would. I would probably throw in a civil suit for defamation. Don’t flatter yourself as a martyr. The Anglican Communion has thrived by having very few of your narrow, fearful, judgmental kinds of clergy.

BillS—actually the 12 were the predecessors to our bishops—overseers.  Judas killing himself kind of put him out of the running.  Peter’s denial, Thomas’s doubt—this was Jesus hand-picked crew—overseers—bishops.

Truth be told, Jesus probably couldn’t pass today’s screening process—he’d never make priest let alone bishop—such is our spiritual insight today.

Sorry, got to back off a while—family time.  Hope to rejoin the discussion later this aftenoon.

“...but if you are going to use this church for Pension Fund purposes…”

Ah, the compassion just bubbles up. I think somebody needs a time-out.

>El Jefe and oscewicee—thanks for your thoughful replies.  Fellow sinners
should be at the altar together—Christ bids us all to confess, repent,
and come to the table.  We repent of the sins that God makes us aware of.

And if we grow in Christ, He makes us aware of those unknown ones, too, so that we may repent of those, also.

You asked me last night, ALP, if I would serve communion to you were I a priest, and I said yes. But, to the extent that your views are those of Fr. Tom’s, I would not receive it from you.

To Fr. Tom - and to you, to the extent that you agree with him - there are a few things I would like to say.

You, Fr. Tom, have in a very patronizing way assured us that our “problem” is that we are not comfortable without boundaries and that we are unwilling to be challenged by our faith.

But while you may think you are taking down boundaries, what you are doing is knocking out the foundations. And you are replacing them with ... yourself.

We have been told that our God is too small, that we have put him in a box. But I would say that you have dressed him in the limitations of mortal flesh and that you have put him there because you, in fact, are not comfortable without such boundaries and because you cannot face the challenges of your faith without crossing your fingers behind your back while you recite the creed, mentally correcting it to give its words meanings that fit your comfort zone. Rather than do the work of your faith by reconciling your life to it, you rewrite it to fit your life.

I apologize if my words are harsh, but your words to us have been harsh, patronizing, contemptuous. Judging. Holier than thou.

I hear the genuine concern about the exclusion of homosexuals and I share it. I have read remarks about homosexuals on this board that have set my teeth on edge with their lack of Christian charity and compassion. But the question is not an easy one that can be wished away or resolved by rewriting our faith for this and each new social issue.  Perhaps the place to start was to say, come sit with us in our pews, come kneel with us at the altar and see what God tells us, to find the answer within our faith - waiting for God’s answer in the fullness of time instead of imposing yours. You and others have chosen to tell the whole church what must be done, based not on theology but your opinion. (You continue to refuse to engage Matt or Dr. Witt theologically.) Is this Christian humility? I read in your words tremendous arrogance and pride - look at me, look what I’m doing, am I not wonderful, so much worthier than you? Where is your sense of gravity about your faith and what these hasty changes may mean to it? Where is your humility?

You say you recognize that there are extremists, to the left of you. I’m glad you’re aware of that. I hope you look at them closely. Tomorrow they will be the moderates. Look for the ones to the left of them to be there the day after. Where that will leave you, I’m not sure. But you are putting in motion a process that won’t stop with you and you may not like where it goes from here. When you pull out the foundations of Scripture and tradition that have served the church for 2,000 years, and put yourself in their place, you are not feeding people with the cup of salvation and the bread of heaven - you are sending them away empty and hungry. Because you are creating a church that changes from moment to moment like a presidential opinion poll. Don’t be surprised if what you, too, are left with is nothing at all, like Vasserot in the MacLeish poem. Your church without “boundaries” will be a church without meaning, just as we all are without meaning without God.

Or, according to the gospel of ALP: “Whatever goes around, comes around.  Be careful what you set in motion.”

I am no theologian. I don’t have the training of a priest. This is my one and only “sermon.” God have mercy on us all.

ALP, you didn’t read Matt’s prior statement, obviously, when you wrote: “Jesus who would tell Judas to leave the table, be on his way, and do what he had to do.”

Matt had already explained: “If someone told me: “I’m planning to cheat on my wife Monday.”

I would seek to dissuade him. But until he actually does the deed, I would communion him in hopes that he might change his mind at the last minute. Judas, however, did not change his mind. He planned to betray and then carried out his plan.”

Tom:
My advice, particularly to you and to Matt, is to be careful in throwing around the word “heretic.” When used against any who make their living in working for the church, it is actionable for damages.

Tom, it looks like you are completely avoiding the judgment of the Anglican Communion as it has been given in Lambeth 1.1, the Windsor Report, and the Dromantine Communique.  The Anglican Communion has said very clearly that ecusa has chosen an heretical path.  Those who adhere to that path must also be heretics.

For the record, I have also not received communion from my bishop since before GC03.  While I understand it is a valid sacrament, I don’t see how being in communion with a bishop who has chosen a heretical and apostate path serves the well being of the church or my soul.

“I believe you have left the church, Matt, so they aren’t important to you, but if you are going to use this church for Pension Fund purposes, these are the rules.”

Note to Tom: the Network has established a pension fund.

Fr. Tom,

It is interesting to compare our posts and chart the invective. I have merely explained why, since you have publicly adopted and promoted a false teaching, I would not commune you.

I have not only “asserted” that you are a heretic, I have demonstrated this to be the case, with, as yet, no substantive response from you.

I have not compared myself to the martyrs. I’m not sure where that came from? I mentioned the martyrs by way of explaining that my “arrogance” in declining to share bread with you in keeping with 1 Cor 5 is nothing compared to the arrogance of rejecting the Word and Truth for which the martyrs suffered.

I would far rather defy you than by word and deed show contempt for the blood and teachings of the apostles, martyrs and saint who have gone before, as in fact, all heretics do.

It is not judgmental to assess the words and actions of a person.  This is the straw man argument that Tom and others make.  Discipline must be applied when our words and actions are contrary to Holy Scripture and discipline must be applied to set an example and hold members accountable.

Today, in the EC discipline is equated with being judgemental.  They are not the same thing.  Discipline is for the current time.  Proper discipline is applied in the hopes that it will direct the person to repentance, forgiveness, and restoration in Christ and His Body.

It sets a holy example of what is acceptable Christian’s behavior in both word and deed.  It holds the individual accountable to the entire body.

It maintains proper order.

Those who God loves he disciplines.  Hebrews 12 is a wonderful chapter on this matter.

Disciple is required in the life of the Church.  No, we are not God and do not decide who is going to heaven or hell for this is the intent of God’s judgemnt.  However, God has revealed His way clearly throughout Holy Scripture and as such, when those boundaries are breached, proper discipline is required.  It is not our job to assess intent or motive.  That is the judgement God does and we do not…for that decides where one will spend eternity!  As such, we see the difference between discipline and judgement.

One of the reason we are in the mess we are in today is that discipline has been set aside because it is incorrectly undertsood as judement and intolerate.  The Bible is clear that some things are not tolerated by God.  Nor should they be tolerated in His Church.

The unforgiveable sin in the EC is perceived intolerance.  The claim of Christ is exclusive.  All are welcome in the Church.  However, embracing our sin and claiming they are blessed and acceptable before God and His Church is simply another false teaching and a clear departure from Holy Scripture that we find in the EC today.

Tom knows this…but the unforgiveable sin for him and most of the priests and bishops in the EC is being intolerant.  Again, we have come to another area where the current leadership of the ECUSA has twisted scripture and teaches falsely.

With every additional comment, Tom continues to dig himself deeper, and as such, we see clearly that there are two different faiths, two different gospels, that are incompatible and in conflict with each other.

A house divided cannot stand.  No one is leaving, Tom.  We are the EC.  We are Anglican.  It is the EC who has redefined both Anglicanism and Christianity to something other than it has been received.  The onus is on you to make your case.

“The church universal decreed quite early that “the unworthiness of the minister does not affect the efficacy of the sacrament.””

Nope, you’re confusing the issue of Donatism and heresy.  Donatism has to do with the case of where a small national church body (TEC, for instance) refuses to be in communion with the church catholic—again, TEC’s actions at GC03 and GC06. TEC are the Donatists here. Heresy is a completely different issue.  The orthodox do not share communion with heretics. Nicene Christians, for example, did not share communion with Arians.  I suggest reading Elert’s book on the subject.

Neiher Matt nor I are deciding who is or is not a heretic based on our own subjective opinions.  That, rather, is based on the traditional teaching of catholic Christendom.  By taking the stance it took at GC03 and confirmed at GC06 TEC has rejected the Church’s historic stance on sexuality.  Moreover, it has rejected the foundational basis of all church authority (at least as claimed by historic Anglicanism)—the sufficiency and clarity of Scripture.  Moroever, again, it has rejected the agreed teaching of the Anglican Communion has affirmed at Lambeth 98, and reaffirmed by the Primates, Archbishop of Canterbury, and the ACC.

TEC is a heretical body.

I think no conversation of any sort with the Rev Woodward will be any use.  Literally nothing has been accomplished by his presence on this board other than confirming that instead of being anything even remotely “moderate” he is a wildly radical liberal Protestant theologian AND a tin-foil left wing political activist to boot.  And a canonical fundamentalist for good measure.  The split in TEC can’t come soon enough…

Father Tom,

Your repetition of the presentment charge, throwing in a civil lawsuit threat to boot, tells me one of several things. Out of charity, I will assume that when you become emotional, you have difficulty controlling your thoughts, and your tongue. But this is not a joke. Lawsuits are legal violence. People can be broken by them, under the weight of court imposed financial obligations. Can’t you see how inconsistent such threats are with a Gospel of love and inclusiveneness?

Please consider whether you are going overboard in your reactions. Your words do not do either your person or your cause any justice. Your theology doesn’t scare me, your apparent lack of charity does.

I’m very glad that Father Kennedy’s bishop is willing to live and let live.

Jean

Creighton, you say I am afraid of being intolerant. On the contrary, I lack tolerance for the distortion of the Christian faith by those who hold to Biblical infallibility and the exclusion from communion of those with whom one disagrees but is in good standing in the church.

I appreciate Dr. Witt’s comments, but he asserts that the Anglicanism of the overwhelming majority of Episcopalians is heretical because we do not hold with traditional Anglicanism which has declared homosexuality as sinful (of course no such thing has been declared—certain homosexual behavior has been so declared but not officially). I remind him as I have reminded you all that the same traditional Anglicanism has declared women unfit to serve on Vestries and has decreed that slavery is acceptable. God gave us minds and we are expected to winnow out what conflicts with Jesus’ words and legacy.

Matt, you have not “demonstrated” that I am a heretic—that is laughable and credible only to sect mentality. Your wild charges are a caricature of theological or biblical discourse and your notion of church discipline is very seriously close to cult religion—and that is something I know a lot about, having investigated several for different authorities. Pretty scary stuff, Matt.

After a season of being castigated by those who do not read what I have written and being appalled at the stance of Matthew in refusing to communicate those who do not share his peculiar view of scripture and having the strangest accusations put into my mouth, I am out of here.

I have appreciated the kindsness and support of many on this list. If anyone wants to discuss any of this away from the Gotcha’s and “you are a heretic’s” you know how to reach me.

Creighton, apropos of your comments above, this is from my sermon yesterday on Dt. 4:

Everyone has commandments, even moral relativists – only the absolutes are different.  For example, all truth is relative is an absolute.  Intolerance is always bad is an absolute.  Of course, there is an exception made to this absolute.  It is okay to be intolerant to the intolerant.  The tolerant are allowed to be intolerant of those who maintain that there are absolute and universal moral standards given by God.  We find this kind of intolerance in the Episcopal Church.

Finally, I note again that the conversation has deteriorated from addressing the theological issue at stake. To put it so that even a seminary-educated TEC priest can understand: What does it mean that Jesus saves?  The answer to this is the true demarcation between orthodoxy and heresy, as it always has been. 

The smokescreens about communion, whether Matt would stone people in the parking lot—yes, Tom Woodward really said that—presentments, pension funds, fear, and attributing motives are just that—a refusal to face the real issue of disagreement.

As the title of this series asks: Has the Episcopal Church really been falsely accused?

It seems much easier to call Matt Kennedy names and accuse him of being a potential murderer—what else could stoning in a parking lot mean?—than to address the question.

Fr. Tom,

I’ve done nothing but communicate and try to move the conversation along by providing evidence supporting my arguments.

To date, you have done nothing but toss out patronizing insults and condescension.

I say I have demonstrated that you are a heretic because I have, as has Dr. Witt, shown your teachings to be contrary to both the Bible and the Church in an objective sense.

As I’ve belabored the point, “heresy” has objective content and your teachings meet the criteria or “fit” that content.

As a result you have insulted, threatened, and whined.

But you have not responded substantively. Now you are going away.

That is your decision, but don’t pretend to have been persecuted or oppressed. On the whole, you have recieved far better in terms of gentleness and respect than you have given.

I appreciate Dr. Witt’s comments, but he asserts that the Anglicanism of the overwhelming majority of Episcopalians is heretical because we do not hold with traditional Anglicanism which has declared homosexuality as sinful (of course no such thing has been declared—certain homosexual behavior has been so declared but not officially).

Note: I did not say that homosexuality (as a condition or orientation) was sinful.  I said that:  “TEC has rejected the Church’s historic stance on sexuality.”  This is an objective fact. Homosexuality as a condition or orientation is what Augustine or Aquinas would have called a desire or if reinforced through practice a “habit.”  Desires and habits are not sins in themselves.  They can be besetting character defects.  And, of course, we all have them.  There are none of us in this conversation who have not at one time or another had to address sexual desires or habits that it would not be moral to fulfill.

And of course Lambeth 98 was quite clear in what it affirmed on this issue.  It is disengenuous to pretend otherwise.  Archbishop Rowan has declared recently that Lambeth 98 is the official teaching of the communion.  The Primates at Dromantine affirmed this as well.  I don’t know what could be more “official.”  But, for Anglicans, it should not need reminding that the Instruments of Unity do not create doctrine.  They recognize it—based on, first, the primacy and sufficiency of Scripture, and second, on the historic tradition of Catholic Christendom.

Rev. Woodward,

On property: the law is clear; you just don’t know a thing about it.  Laws related to church property cases vary by state, and so any victories by ECUSA outside of California are irrelevant to cases inside California.  Yes, the law is clear, and the appeals you mention are nothing more than a waste of resources by those bishops.  Which is fine by me; the sickly parts of the institution can bleed themselves dry for all I care.  They certainly have no Gospel mission to proclaim.

On the Eucharist: the Disciplinary Rubrics in the ECUSA service book (p. 409) are clear, and so, like most every topic that’s been discussed here, you would do well to stop embarrassing yourself, since you obviously know little to nothing about the subjects you’re addressing.  One thing I am sure is that even the loosey-goosey ECUSA canons don’t permit a presentment for hurting your feelings.

Fr. Tom - I know you are “out of here”, but I’ll still have my say.

The “overwhelming majority” of Episcopalians have not declared that they reject traditional Anglicanism.  The elite, appointed “representatives” to GC have taken us on this path, and our failing has been that it has not been stopped.

This brings us to the description of a church as “democratic” - it just isn’t.  So, even if the “majority” of the Episcopal Church believed in the - let’s call it mistaken impressions or re-reading of the Scripture, it still wouldn’t make it right.  This is NOT a democracy, there is not a clause anywhere that says, “Let’s take a vote in the pews”.  If that were the case, you lose - you just don’t know it yet.  Since it isn’t the case, you still lose.  You’re wrong, and it is not going to change. 

You are certainly welcome to disagree with me, but the differences are not just “nuts and bolts”, as you declared earlier.  These are deal-breakers, as has been evidenced by the reaction of the Global church.

I know I’m not a learned person, by the standards of the folks who are making such clear, consise, and Bible-based points here - but you don’t respond to those, you move from your emotions and your pre-set notions, so I’ll come back at you the same way.  I’m one of the “majority”, and I don’t agree with you.

Re: “I think no conversation of any sort with the Rev Woodward will be any use.”

I do believe that it has been intensely useful, only not, perhaps, for TBWSF.  This site receives many thousands of viewers a day, and all of them have silently observed a classic raving revisionist 1) announce that he is a moderate, 2) announce his interesting viewpoints on the Virgin Birth, the resurrection of Jesus, the authority of scripture, and various other theologies, 3) bumble around in his efforts to defend his positions, 4) fail dramatically and often at defending those positions, being unable to present coherent, consistent, and rational arguments and revealing a startling lack in church history or scripture, 5) announce that the Episcopal church is being taken over by the right wing and/or the Republican party, 6) ranted about how he is an orthodox classical Anglican, 7) and finally and most tellingly revealed that he really really *does* believe in church discipline and standards—just not the ones found in scripture—and suddenly has standards for who should be in the church. It’s not people who openly and grotesquely teach something that is not Christian, but those who would defend the gospel of Jesus Christ that TBWSF would like to banish.  So much for much-vaunted inclusion, affirmation, and acceptance.  ; > )

No, I think the rather frenzied incoherence of Tom Woodward’s thoughts have been marvelously useful to all at StandFirm.  It’s a thread that will last for a long, long time out here in cyberspace, and serve as Exhibit A. 

He has very ably represented the far left fringe of the Episcopal church and I for one am very grateful that he arrived and took the time to discourse with everyone and explain his group’s positions and theology.  We should honor him for the gift that he has made us of his time, and his thoughts.

The Rev Woodward has provided clarity, I grant that.

I am very grateful for TW and ALP coming to this forum and hanging in there.  They have let all the lurkers see what the unpleasentness is all about.  It would be very dull to just read sermons but they serve as a backboard to showcase the issues at hand.  Indeed all the councils were convened to hammar out issues that heretics had brought up.  For that we have sharp deleniations of what is true Christianity and what the church catholic teaches.  Athanaseus would be proud.  Paul reminded the church, “for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.”  (I Cor. 11:19)  For fourty years PECUSA has had heretics creep in and while men slept satan sowed his weeds.  He went to the seminaries first.  TW and ALP are the product of that teaching.  Of course orthodoxy was pushed away as cultic, fundamentalist, ignorant without seriously engageing it.  It don’t think FW or ALP can see this.  They are sincere but misguided.  The tip of the ice burg has at least brought out in the open this other gospel that has been permeating TEC so that the pew warmers can see what has happened.  It was easy for the heretics to hide behind liturgy, god words, terminoly that had been secretly redefined and deconstructed as well as the natural inclination to trust nice warm people.  Now it is in the open.  Battle lines are drawn.  It has been good for me to observe that there are strong believers in the church of my grandmother.  I would not have believed it.  I also rejoice to see how firm the great majority of the Anglican Communion is in the true faith.  This is new to most Americans.  Thanks TW, ALO, Matt and others. The question on the floor is Has the Episcopal Church been misjudged?  Matt has proved his point with the help all all sides being evident.  QED

Tom,

I appreciate your perseverance here.  Despite what my some of my more vocal brothers and sisters in Christ here at SF might think, I think you’ve shown a willingness to turn the other cheek numerous times.  And you’ve admitted that you’ve slapped a few cheeks as well.  All in all, a fair summary. 

I was sorry to see the whole “open v. closed communion” business get inserted into this thread because it not only took us off topic but is also added to the friction between “us” and “
them.”  Let’s see if we can bring us back on track by picking up on an idea that both Bill Witt and I had expressed earlier—namely, a discussion over the person and work of Christ.

You see, underlying the business about “Jesus, the Only Way” that you criticized in your article is another perception that we conservatives have about the TEC and its leadership that needs to be brought front and center:  we conservatives perceive that TEC and its leadership has a different understanding of the person and work of Christ from that expressed in our Book of Common Prayer.  In other words, TEC has a different Jesus from “my” Jesus (Screwtape’s comment about the possesive pronoun duly noted).  And if we have a different Jesus, don’t we really have two different religions?

So I’m wondering, Tom, if you’ve noticed that some on your side have expressed positions on the person and work of Christ that make us over here in conservative land a little nervous?

Dear Fr. Woodward,

Blessings, always.

OK. First, I did NOT SAY that most major New England clerics were absent from VGR’s consecration: I said that most “prominent conservative” clergymen and women were absent. So you speak too hastily. As for my judging UU’s motives, you should be more careful: I know Unitarianism and I know why UU’s were there: I only had to read their signs, see their gay-pride lapel pins, hear what they said. Remember, I was AT the consecration; I stood in the long queue with everybody. So, you need not take umbrage with my statements as if they were uttered offhand.

Lastly, you asked me to email you my comments and questions; you stated that you had not seen them. How then do you reconcile this with your last comment to me, “seriously, I have appreciated your irenic tone until your last post”? So are you saying that you actually have been reading my posts? For if you hadn’t been reading my posts, then my “last” one would have actually been the second one you read. I find it difficult to understand how you could find me “irenic” and then conclude that I am not. Please don’t leave me thinking that you’ve actually been reading my comments all along. It will be a sad day for me.

Peace and mirth,

Gnade

Bill Gnade,
Thanks for replying my questions - I asked them because it seemed so surreal to me. I am not very sophisticated about the influences our church leadership are subject to and was astonished that Unitarians were noticeably at the consecration although I am sure other groups were also there as visitors. 
I wish groups like Noel (Right to Life) and Exodus had as much influence but this is a serious thing and I am sure they would not be blatantly campaigning at the Consecration of a Bishop.
Now I will let you get back on subject and continue to read this thread.

Hi, guys,

I’ve been following all of your conversation with interest. Hope you don’t mind if I ask some questions. Why does everyone seem to feel that people are automatically “heretics” who adopt a more pro-gay position?

Isn’t there a difference between a deliberate and willfull rejection of the word of God, as opposed to a differing interpretation of some of these passages in question?

For myself, I’m feeling that a person could be totally orthodox, completely accept the inspiration and authority of Scripture, but simply not feel that Scripture is addressing the issue of constitutional homosexuality, or looking at gay people who love Jesus Christ who are in committed relationships.

I’m feeling that things such as a denial of the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of our Lord, or teaching that Jesus Christ is only one of many means to the divine are really seperate issues.
( I personally take a more pro-gay position, but I can tell you that I absolutely affirm the historic creeds of the Christian church, and believe that ultimately “all salvation is in Jesus Christ our Lord.” Beside Him , there is no other!

Thanks for listening, and God bless!

Why does everyone seem to feel that people are automatically “heretics” who adopt a more pro-gay position?

Umm, because people who adopt that position are heretics.
Actaully the preferred term is: non-christian.

Isn’t there a difference between a deliberate and willfull rejection of the word of God, as opposed to a differing interpretation of some of these passages in question?

In some cases, perhaps. In the case of 1 Timothy 1: 9-10;
Leviticus 18 & 20, 1 Cor 6:9, and so on, there <b>can be only one interpretation that is consistent with the plain meaning of scripture</b>

Gays will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.

Taking any other interpretation of these passages is a
deliberate and willfull rejection of the word of God,—- and that word of God is Christ, of course.

it really is that simple. Gay people who are in comitted relationships do not love Jesus. RIght?

Why is this so important to reiterate: well reading
Sarah Hey on Tom Woodward: “He has very ably represented the far left fringe of the Episcopal church”

If that were so it would not be such a problem: the problem is Woodward represents a “centre right” position in the leadership of the church. But by the standards e.g. of the Anglican Communion, that position is simply not Christian.

Why does everyone seem to feel that people are automatically “heretics” who adopt a more pro-gay position?

Isn’t there a difference between a deliberate and willfull rejection of the word of God, as opposed to a differing interpretation of some of these passages in question?

A. That’s what many liberals say, that it’s only a matter of interpretation.  Walter Wink is one of the few honest theologians on the left who admits that the biblical text and trajectory are clearly against homosexual activity, but he adds that the church should proceed anyway.  PB FTG made a famous statement in a Philly newspaper that ecusa has moved beyond Scripture, but the Spirit has led us there.  That’s not only heresy, that’s gnosticism.  I don’t like labeling people heretics, but the word does fit for people who deny particularly the central tenets of the faith, as too many clergy do in ecusa.

Sinner, I don’t think Tom would be center-right; I’m not sure that he would even agree with that.  He’s a liberal who wants to pretend he is a moderate, and yet the positions he has taken on Stand Firm clearly put him on the liberal side of the ledger.

Tom,

As Matt and I have repeatedly pointed out, you have not addressed any of the theological questions put to you.  You have side stepped, danced around them, and made assertions without substance.  You have not made your case.

I wish you well…but what must be obvious to those on all sides is that we do not have a common faith.  As this is about the cure of souls and where people will spend eternity, it matters.

Sinner,at the risk of looking a bit callous,I don’t deny that some who have been or are involved in homosexual relationships can love Jesus just like those heterosexuals who are in sexual relationships outside of marriage.But I can’t avoid the plain truth,that any ongoing sexual relationship outside of marriage makes the claim of loving Jesus what 1 John in the Phillips calls ‘telling and living a lie’ because it is ongoing and outside of the God ordained criteria of marriage between man and woman.
Here,then,is the message which we heard from Him,and now proclaim to you;GOD IS LIGHT and no shadow of darkness can exist in Him.Consequently,if we were to say that we enjoyed fellowship with Him and still went on living in darkness,we should both be telling and living a lie.‘1 John 1:5-6 Phillips

Grace17033,

I disagree with Sinner that “gays will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.” The Bible teaches us that unrepentant sinners will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. Some of those unrepentant sinners will be gays. Some of them will be adulterers. Some will be thieves, and murderers, and so on.

There is no such thing as a “pro-gay” position, in the sense that one can be “pro-homosexual behavior” and still lay claim to hewing to Christian teaching. Homosexuals are sinners just like the rest of us. The orthodox Anglican position is not that those who are sympathetic to, or tolerant of, homosexuals are heretics. Quite the opposite: Christ teaches us to do precisely that, with gays and all other sinners as well.

The ones we accuse as heretics are the ones who want to teach that homosexual behavior - distinct from same-sex attraction - is not a sin, despite the fact that Scripture unambiguously calls it that.

This debate is not about interpretation. It’s about the authority of Holy Scripture in our church. It is ultimately about who Jesus Christ was, and why he came to earth.

Perhaps the best explanation available is right here at Stand Firm: Dr. Kendall Harmon’s “Iceberg” presentation. Begin with “Crisis, Part 2,” and go through “Crisis, Part 9.” You can listen to all 8 segment back-to-back in about an hour, or you can take them one at a time as you have the time.

They have not hesitated to corrupt the word of God; they have treated the standard of the primitive faith with contempt; they have not known Christ.  Instead of asking what Holy Scripture says, they strain every nerve to find a syllogistic figure to bolster up their godlessness.  If anyone challenges them with a text from Divine Scripture they examine it to see whether it can be turned into a conjunctive or disconjunctive syllogistic figure… When people avail themselves of the arts of unbelievers to lend colour to their heretical views, and with godless rascality corrupt the simple Faith of Holy Writ, it is obvious that they are nowhere near the Faith.  So it was that they laid hands unblushingly on the Holy Scriptures, claiming to have corrected them…  Either they do not believe that the inspired Scriptures were spoken by the Holy Spirit- if so they are unbelievers; or they imagine that they are wiser than He…  Some of them have not even deigned to falsify the text, but have simply repudiated both Law and Prophets, and so under cover of a wicked, godless teaching have plunged into the lowest depths of destruction.

Eusebius, History of the Church, Book 5

These 2nd and 3rd century heretics sound familiar- and looks like the polemics against them were a bit harsher than those found on Stand Firm…

Thanks for your response. I’m a Lutheran, guys, so I feel so strongly that we come into a right relationship with God through faith alone in the atonement of Jesus Christ.  Of course, I also think that saving faith will produce the fruits of the Spirit, and a desire to avoid sin.

But, for me, part of the difficulty with these passages of Scripture in ICor. 6:9 and ITim. l:10 is that I know there is dispute among Greek scholars concerning the meaning of malokois and arsenokoitoi. Many believe that this may be referring to those who are effeminate call boys or those involved in sexual exploitation.

I would not have a peace absolutely assuming this Scripture is speaking of people who are constitutionally gay, involved in loving committed relationships who know the Lord.

Sinner, I know you are sincere, but can we say with such certainty where someone else is at in their relationship with the Lord? Who can completely know our hearts and minds other than the spirit of God?

Grace17033,

Here’s a section from an article I wrote for my parish regarding the Grk in question:

In 1st Corinthians 6:9-11, St. Paul again turns to the subject of homosexuality and includes homosexual behaviors in a list of behaviors considered characteristic of people who “do not inherit the Kingdom of God” (see above). Some revisionist scholars have questioned whether the Greek words Paul uses here are intended to indicate all homosexual activity or whether St. Paul is addressing specifically male prostitution, in which case, they argue, this passage cannot apply to the monogamous homosexual relationships of today.

Given Paul’s very clear and strong condemnation of homosexual behavior in general in Romans 1, the argument over 1 Cor 6:9 is not all that crucial because we know that Paul condemned the homosexual act in general whether paid for or not.

But just to play along with the argument, let me note that the most common ways the two Greek words in question here, “Malakoi” and “Arsenokoitai,” were used demonstrate that Paul almost beyond a doubt was referring to male homosexual relations. “Malakos” refers most often to a male who is “soft” or effeminate, or passive. In the context of sexuality it was used most commonly to refer to the passive partner in a male homosexual erotic relationship. Some have argued that it refers specifically to young male prostitutes who take on the role of the female in bed, but there is another much more common word for these people, “kinaidos.”

So, it’s more likely, given the plain sense of the word “malakos” and the fact that there was a more common word available—“kinaidos”—that Paul was simply referring to the passive sexual partner in male homosexual intercourse, and the identification of these people as male prostitutes is incorrect.

“Arsenokoites,” the second word, means “one who lies with a male in a male homosexual erotic relationship.” This word as it was most commonly used in the context of sexual relations refers “in general” to any male who plays the role of the male in bed with another male, be he with a prostitute or with a lover.

The interesting thing about this word, as Richard Hays notes in his Moral Vision of the New Testament, is that coming from a learned Jew like Paul, “arsenokoites” would likely represent an allusion to the Greek text of Leviticus 20:13 “meta arsenos koiten gynaikos,” “arsenokoites” being a compound of “arsen” (male) “and koiten” (intercourse). The compound word, “arsenokoites” is in fact not known in Greek literature prior to the NT. For that reason Hays believes Paul likely created it in reference to Leviticus 20. The significance of this, of course, is that Paul understood the Levitical prohibitions against homosexuality to be morally binding on the church beyond the context of ritual purity. Most likely these two words taken together represent a blanket condemnation of both the passive and assertive forms of male homosexual behavior. This passage, therefore, represents another explicit NT condemnation of homosexual behavior without regard to cultural or relational context. (Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich and Danker Greek Lexicon of the NT and other Early Christian Literature )

Thank you, Matt, for probably the most complete explanation of these passages that I have read (in my recent memory.) God bless you for making great sacrifice of your time, energy and more on behalf of the rest of us. God will honor your humility and your commitment. You are truly zealous for the Lord, his Word and his church.

YSIC, Merlena

But Grace17033,

Your reasoning breaks down if I, as a “constitutionally unfaithful husband” (and many “studies” suggest men are hard-wired to spread their seed widely)am in a “loving committed relationship” with my mistress(es). Am I to be exempted from God’s plan for sex only within heterosexual marriage? Is that our next step in our loosey-goosey slippery slide down the slope?

BTW I doubt that science will ever discover the “mystery gene” that causes “constitutionally” gay folk any more than it will discover the “mystery gene” that urges hard-wires males to spread their seed. I think both theories will fade away over time. Both urges are simply weaknesses of character.

We can all be pro-gay in the sense that we can love them and sympathize with their struggle with an inappropriate sexual impulse, just as we sympathize with the pedophile who is drawn to sexual fantasies about children. But we draw the line when they (or any others with a deviant sexual urge) ask us to bless them when they act out on those urges.

Same sex attraction was clearly recognized by the APA until a few decades ago as a mental disorder. A purely political, social-engineering campaign pressured the APA into deleting it from their book of disorders. The man who led that effort has recently recanted his work. He has admitted that no real science was employed. The so-called Kinsey Report that supported those politics has been debunked as junk science (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSVPAmerica).

Grace, I feel sorry for some friends I have who have pled that their marital infidelity is “just their nature”. But I am not about to give them a pass on the matter of sin. Sin is sin. I will do whatever I can to help them repent and amend their behaviour. But I will not try to redefine sin. To my mind, those who can say they can interpret scripture to their own convenience just don’t get it.

Matt+‘s response to you was much more learned than mine in terms of scriptural language, especially the mysterious Greek. On the other hand my response is just a gut reaction based on 70 years of getting my head whacked when I strayed. And I was REALLY tempted to stray. God always seemed to find a way to slap me up side the head. TBTG.

And I might add, happily married for going on 49 years in spite of those “temptations of the flesh”. God is good. And He is even better when you pay attention.

Matt+

Every once in a while I have to go back to your original tract to remind myself of the issue we are arguing. TBTG for your selflessness in posting these theses and helping us carry on carrying on.

Sarah,

Your points are well taken, except for one. While Woodward+ was useful for slapping us around and reminding us how far off the mark the revisionists are, he is not, as you stated, the far left fringe. There is a fringe element out there far to the left of Tom, and within the definitions of the left, Tom may be a “moderate within the left”. He is still off the chart of catholicity, but he may be to the right of some of the Wiccans, Spongians and others who still cohabitate with TEC. I would welcome Tom back any time, if only to scare the hell out of me and remind me to Stand Firm.

Re: “Sinner, I know you are sincere, but can we say with such certainty where someone else is at in their relationship with the Lord?”

Grace17033, welcome to the site!

Sadly, I need to tell you that Sinner is not sincere.  He’s been posting over at Kendall’s site for years and is a pronounced revisionist/postmodernist/liberal/progressive.  But he spends much of his time, oddly, proclaiming various ideas and statements that he deems to be “orthodox”, as well as making wild predictions of draconian traditionalist successes within the Anglican Communion, coupled with visions of jack-booted traditional Episcopalians marching through the Arc de Triomphe after personally casting people into a lake of fire.

I used to think I understood it, and I used to think that Sinner was sincere.  But sadly, after years of my providing evidence to him that the wild-eyed statements he was attributing to traditionalists were not remotely accurate, nor were his predictions ever accurate [and they are usually remarkably detailed, so even more startingly inaccurate when they are not fufilled], I have realized that he has reasons for his comments unknown and mysterious to most of us.

I’m just warning you so that you know that Sinner is not a traditionalist.  I well recall a distressing incident on this blog two years ago, when we were all much wilder and wickeder, and someone used a program called “The Grizzolater” on another reappraiser/progressive.  The Grizzolater is a program that has various rambling Griswoldian vacuities that, when you ask it a question, it spits out a typically incoherent answer.  Anyway, one progressive carried on a conversation with it for a while on this blog without knowing that it was a program.  A kind soul realized this and let her know.  But it was a mortifying incident for us [and no, I had nothing to do with it].  As I recall, all of our natural repressed-Fundamentalist-tendencies bubbled to the surface, and we boiled the perpetrator of this incident in oil.

Anyway, if Sinner were a smart prophet, he would make his predictions more blurry and vague.  Something like: “I sense great joy coming to certain segments of the Anglican Communion” or “The upcoming Dromantine meeting will include conflict between surprising parties.”

But no . . . he does not accept my counsel regarding how to prevent the embarrassing and depressing inaccuracies of his prophecies.

Just a friendly word of warning here . . .

Grace

Sinner, I know you are sincere

As Sarah Hey has said, I’m not sincere, Anything but.
Who is sincere but God?

but can we say with such certainty where someone else is at in their relationship with the Lord? Who can completely know our hearts and minds other than the spirit of God?

but we yes we can! By their friuts ye shall know them (see, even Sinners can quote scripture). We’re judging them by the same standards we judge ourselves: we’re not gay, we’re OK!

More to the point: Tony, Creighton, Greg, and our host Matt have pretty much directly confirmed the Sinner post above, but it less blunt language.

While Sarah - who seems to have given up convincing herself Sinner is a Christian - may aruge I’m just spamming, well perhaps, but again another 5 posts have said the same thing I have.  And that position reflects the judgent of a majority of the provinces in the anglican communion, the majority of Anglicans, and indeed the majority of Christian, Islamic, and Jewish authorities and believers: it would again be heresy to split a church over anything less!

Dear Grace 17033, blessings!

There are many reasons why the advocates of gay marriage and gay ordination in the church are heretical. Scriptural reasons are often cited to point out such heresy; tradition also speaks to it, as does reason. As a Lutheran, you may not know that for Episcopalians Scripture, Tradition and Reason—together—form the basis of spiritual discernment.

Let me just run through several quick points:

Marriage, at least to me, is a sacrament. Pro-gay marriage advocates have not yet shown how a gay “marriage” can be sacramental. You see, sacraments MEAN something; they embody something transcendant in a symbolic though physical and grace-giving form. If, for a moment, we can turn the noun ‘sacrament’ into a verb, we might thus ask, “What does gay marriage sacrament?” What does it symbolize in Christian theology? What mystery does it reveal, what grace does it bestow? What is its incarnational dimension; what is brought into a clearer picture by the union of a man and a man? In answering these questions, I have found in all cases that gay marriage advocates instantly turn reductionistic, reducing both marriage and sacrament into words of lesser import.

Genetics, at least to me, is a slippery, dangerous slope. Surely if there is a gay gene; surely if there is a love gene, an alcoholism gene, a depression gene; if there is a gene for all sorts of things good and bad, then surely there is a hate gene, even, yes, a homophobia gene. Sociobiologists have argued that each person’s very cytoplasm is genetically self-interested in procreation; could it be that nature has endowed straight men and women with an aversion to something that is dangerous to the longevity of a person’s gene pool? Could nature have created homophobia the way it has created a fear of fire and the revulsion at the smell of rotting flesh? Why not? And if it has, then are progressives going to rally around this aversion, celebrating it as natural and God-given?

You see, arguing from a position of “constitution”, of even createdness, is fraught with problems. That even gay advocates argue that “no one would choose homosexuality, so it must be caused by something else,” suggest in that very language that homosexuality is so unlovely no one would choose it. Related to this, progressive theologians argue that Scripture (Romans, particularly) only condemns homosexual acts by straight men who corrupt their natures in homosexual acts; but even this is problematic, for if homosexual acts are Godly and God-given, then there can be no sin if a straight chooses to engage in them. Why would there be? It’s like saying because a baseball player is right-handed, he can never bat left-handed, since it is against his nature. Oddly, baseball players who can switch hit are lauded for expanding their repertoire, because if hitting a baseball is good, it does not matter what your nature is inclined to do if the action being done is glorious. The pro-gay argument, in this matter, is absurd.

All of this, and so much more, combine, in the final analysis, to render gay marriage and ordination heretical. The arguments posited for it make no sense; as such, we can conclude that God, if He exists, is not a self-contradictory, self-canceling being. And since this is the nub of the matter—that God is rational—pro-gay activists are prone to redefine what it means to be divine, what it means for God to be God. In the end, liberals defend a sort of orthodox agnosticism, even a gnosticism, that knows just one thing for certain; God is different than we have traditionally thought: He is more like us, tossed to and fro by every wind of designer doctrine. It is this that is ultimately heretical.

Rambling on, no doubt, but nonetheless bidding you peace,

BG

Sarah, thanks for your welcome, and everyone for your comments. Wow, how to respond to everything…

Fr. Matt you have made a good argument, but, yet, I don’t feel it is conclusive. I know that there just isn’t really a consensus among these scholars. For instance, many believe the Scripture in Rom. is referencing pagan cults, basically heterosexual people who are caught up in pagan idolotry willing to basically have sex with anyone in orgiastic kind of rituals. Everyone, can we truly be certain this Scripture is referring to Christian people who are not idolters, who love the Lord, and are involved in loving, committed relationships, and who are constitutionally gay? (There’s certainly more that a reasonable doubt in my mind.)

Gulfstream, I agree with you that sometimes people can use this “it’s just in my nature” kind of thing as an excuse for sin. But, I’m thinking that adultery, the betrayal and violation of marriage, and all the hurt that this causes is just not the same thing as sexual orientation, and same sex relationships that are marked by caring and fidelity.

Well, guys, it’s certain we are not all going to agree, but what’s wrong with allowing freedom of conscience in this matter as we do in some of these issues relating to the role of women or divorce and remarriage. Is this something that should totally seperate us as brothers and sisters in Christ?

Also, I’m very concerned how GLBT can be hindered from coming to Christ by all of this. It can all be a tremendous stumbling block.

Sinner, I’m relieved that you are not completely sincere. Otherwise, I was soon ready to pray for your conversion.   God bless!

Grace17033,

Wow, overlooked again! Umbrage! Have you no words for me? Perhaps my comment to you went unnoticed. So be it. Surely you are not beholden to anyone here, least of all this middle-aged chatterbox.

Nevertheless, may you delight in the Lord this day as He no doubt delights in you.

Peace.

BG

Is this something that should totally seperate us as brothers and sisters in Christ?

Grace,

The message of the Bible regarding sex is quite clear: As a sacred act, it is reserved solely for marriage, and marriage is between one man and one woman. No amount of debate over the precise meaning of the original Greek, or whether the subject of the prohibition is pagan orgies or temple prostitution, can change that. Christians are called to be faithful in marriage, and chaste outside marriage, period. Gay sex fails both of those calls.

And as we have to keep reminding ourselves and others, the crux of the debate is NOT about homosexual behavior. It is about the authority of Scripture and whether we are a church under that authority; and far too often it is about who Christ is, and what His role in our Salvation is. Almost without exception, the people wanting to radically change those definitions are the same ones who insist that we have to change 2,000 years of Christian teaching about sexual morality.

I will have to agree with Widening Gyre here. I think we may have shot ourselves in the foot by going off on the open/closed communion tangent. Unfortunately, some of us came across as self-righteous and intolerant. Don’t get me wrong here: I am no proponent of “open” communion. Open communion is one the pet causes of the liberal revisionistas and I realize that. I just think our tone got a little strident.

It seems that Tom W.+ has decided to cut his losses and break off the engagement. Too bad, he was a great reminder to all of us of how far TEC/ECUSA has slipped to the left. He was frustrating to debate and listen to since he steadfastly ignored and refused to respond to the great majority of excellent questions posed to him by a number of posters but I want him to know that he would be welcome back anytime.

BTW: I just noticed that the number of posts to the several parts of this “Falsely Accused” thread are approaching 600. WOW!!!! That has got to be some kind of record. And we still have got several parts to go. Matt+ has really touched a nerve here. Keep it up Matt+.

the snarkster

Grace,

The passages referring to homosexuality are not “disputed passages” or “ambiguous” in any way. The presence of debate does not always, and especially in this case, point to an unsettled question.

For example, there are smart, educated people who believe, argue forcefully, and publish books claiming that the Great Pyramids were constructed by space aliens.

But the presence of their claim does not mean that there is any serious dispute.

I for one am glad that this discussion has not been overly sidetracked by the question of whether to approve of same-sex unions.  That’s one of the real strengths in the approach Matt has taken.  Our disagreement is not just about this one thing, and he’s shown that well.  Having said that, a correction is in order:

“I know that there just isn’t really a consensus among these scholars. For instance, many believe the scripture in Rom. is referencing pagan cults, basically heterosexual people who are caught up in pagan idolotry willing to basically have sex with anyone in orgiastic kind of rituals.”

Actually, there is a consensus.  The vast majority of critical biblical scholars, both traditional and revisionist, agree that Scripture condemns same-sex activity, full-stop.  I posted a series of quotations to that effect to Tom Woodward earlier in this discussion.  His response was that all of these people were bad scholars, except for his one advocate, William Countryman.  The “cult prostitution” argument just isn’t considered viable anymore, except for those who haven’t kept abreast with the scholarship, or who want to snooker those that they think haven’t.  For this reason, the current approach among revisionists (and Fr. Woodward’s other friend, Walter Wink, is an example) is to admit that the Bible condemns same-sex activity, but then to respond: “So what? We know better now than the biblical writers did.” That’s why, for example, arguments about shellfish and slavery and playing football come up. (BTW, footballs aren’t really made of “pigskin.”) It’s a way of saying, “See, the biblical writers were wrong about these things.  They’re also wrong about this.” The problem with this approach is that it effectively undermines all biblical authority.  Apart from an actual hermeneutic that provides criteria for distinguishing between such things as shellfish and slavery and sexual mores, the Bible becomes (as I said earlier) a buffet, in which we load up on the fried chicken and dessert, and pass by the brussel sprouts.

“I think we may have shot ourselves in the foot by going off on the open/closed communion tangent.”

One of the frustrating things about these discussions is the constant introduction of red herrings.  But in this case I think it important to remind people that the question about communion is not one of a handful of extremists who on their own individual initiative refuse to share communion with the whole church.  It’s a question of the entire Anglican Communion against one willful and eccentric national denomination.  The Communion (and here I mean Lambeth, ABC, the Primates, and, finally, even the ACC) have made it clear what the Church’s official position is.  The Windsor Report and subsequent statements by the ABC and the Primates have made it clear what the consequences would be if TEC didn’t back down at GC06.  The ACC confirmed this by effectively putting TEC on probation.  (Matt did a very good series of posts on this just before General Convention.) By confirming at GC06 the stance it had taken at GC03, TEC made clear that it no longer wished to be in communion with the rest of the Anglican world.

I think that’s why there has been so much squawking lately from groups like “Episcopal Majority.”  The writing is on the wall, and the big propoganda effort is about keeping everybody on board when the clamp-down comes.  “We’re the moderates.  They’re all extrrmists, beyond the pale of what it means to be “classically Anglican.”  Even if the “extremists” turn out to be the 60-70 million Anglicans who refuse communion with TEC sometime in the upcoming months, and “classical Anglican” ends up being the 700,000 ASA who can be counted on to turn up on Sunday mornings, minus the “extremists” in the ACN, and Windsor-compliant biships and dioceses, who choose to stay with the Communion.

But I do admit that in the heat of battle, it’s easy to forget charity.  Mea culpa.

I’ve written a piece here that I hope reflects my more nuanced approach:

The Perils of Boostrapping or What is Christian Ethics?

And let’s not forget what Walter Wink himself said:

I have long insisted that the issue is one of hermeneutics, and that efforts to twist the text to mean what it clearly does not say are deplorable. Simply put, the Bible is negative toward same-sex behavior, and there is no getting around it. The issue is precisely what weight that judgment should have in the ethics of Christian life.

Lest any be confused by Wink’s somewhat invective review, here is Gagnon’s response to Wink’s reveiw.

William Witt, your link above doesn’t work for me.

“William Witt, your link above doesn’t work for me.”

You’re right. It doesn’t. how about now?

The Perils of Boostrapping or What is Christian Ethics?

Yes, thank you.

Hi, Bill

Sorry I overlooked your comments?  I’ll do my best to respond. (Your questions are challenging, and I certainly don’t think I have all the answers.) I don’t know that gay unions are exactly the same as marriage or can be considered a sacrament in the same sense. They’re definitely relationships of mutual love, committment and fidelity that I feel can be blessed! But, I myself, would have to more deeply consider your question and concerns relating to marriage.

I honestly don’t know if it’s possible that homophobia may have a genetic component. I guess it depends partly in how someone even defines homophobia. To me, I think homophobia is referring to an irrational fear, and even hatred of gay people. I myself hold to a more pro-gay position, but I don’t personally feel that everyone who disagrees is necessarily homophobic or bigoted.

I’m thinking in Romans when Paul is speaking of men giving up the natural use of the women, he is speaking of something more serious than like being ambidexterous.

Paul wrote his letter to the Romans while in Corinth, a Greek city where the primary religion was the worship of Aphrodite, a hermaphrodite with both male and female sexual organs. In the worship of this diety heterosexual men and women acted as members of the opposite sex to experience the sexual side of their diety that differed from their own. I personally think that Paul was speaking against idolotry and these lustful, obscene sexual practices. I think Paul was not speaking in terms of sexual orientation here, and committed, faithful relationships among gay people that we are familar with today.( Of course, Bill, I cannot absolutely prove this and Christian people disagree.)

The only thing I can say is that we need to hold each other up in prayer, and trust God to show us His truth in the whole matter. Thank you for your kindness and blessing.

Matt and Greg,

I can see that your mind is pretty set in this whole issue, and I’m hearing ya. Maybe I can share in another way.  In reading through all of the passages in the Scripture which speak of same sex relations, I really do not get the sense that Scripture is actually speaking of people who are constitutionally gay, involved in loving, committed relationships who know the Lord. At least, I would say, for me, this should be really open to question. (I’m not feeling this is all in the same catagory as arbitrarily believing that space aliens built the great pyramids.)

Also, I can honestly share with you that I fully accept the inspiration and authority of Scripture, but I’m feeling the difficulty is more in coming to the right interpretation of Scripture.

I understand that you feel so strongly, and I can only ask that you would continue to pray and seek God in all of this, and I’m certainly doing the same.

But, why do you feel that this is an issue that needs to be church dividing?  I could understand if this were a matter relating to say, the divinity of Jesus or the resurrection?  But, either way, I don’t feel any core doctines of the faith are affected. Why not remain in fellowship together, and trust God to help all of us work out these differences?

Grace,

“and same sex relationships that are marked by caring and fidelity.” (phraisical OXYMORON!!)

I think the myth that many of these relationships exist is part of our problem. I have several gay couple friends and their relationships are all “open deals” in which one or both goes grazing in the gay bars without reproach. I cannot think of any gay couple I have known in the last 50 years that was acquainted with fidelity. I have known a couple of lesbian couples who seemed to meet that test. But since you defend the group as GLBT, tell me ask about the Bi-sexuals? Just how do they manage to maintain fidelity and their orientation? That’s a real challenge! I won’t even ask about the “T’s”, don’t want to go there. 

But don’t get me wrong. I also recognize that many married heterosexuals graze off the plantation. I just think it is a significantly
lower percentage than among the gay community.

The nonsense that scholars lack consensus on the scriptural pronouncements on the matter have been better answered by others than I possibly could.

Hope you find blessings even while among us Neanderthals. I know you mean well.

Grace,

What has helped me is to look through the Bible to find an example of a faithful, loving same-sex relationship akin to marriage - not just a friendship, but a sexual partnership as well.  I couldn’t find one.  Not one.  I looked - really I did.  I went through a period with a much-beloved sister-in-law of mine, where she insisted that I “affirm” her lesbian lifestyle, otherwise she was out of my life.  I tried to justify, and could not.  She offered up Ruth and Naomi, and David and Jonathan - it didn’t make the cut.  She used “reason” and “current knowledge” aginst the so-called clobber passages.  Her arguments did not meet the test of the overbearing truth in Scripture.  This was 25 years ago, and the arguments haven’t changed - and neither has the truth (or the TRUTH, either).  She was indeed, by her choice, out of my life for quite a while, and there was a lot of pain involved.

If God had approved of this type of relationship, He would have shown us a blessed example of it - no matter what cultural filters the human “writers” of the Bible used.  No matter how outrageous the folks of His time thought He was, Jesus never stepped outside the Truth and example of Scripture. I don’t believe we have the right or justification to do so.

Grace,
Would you look through the article here on Stand Firm linked here?

Homosexuality is not the church dividing issue here.  It is only the presenting symptom.  The issue is truly the authority of Scripture.

Your posts reflect your name.  It’s nice to meet you Grace.

Grace,

I don’t really know what else to say. We have, on the one hand, Scripture which plainly prohibits homosexual behavior as sinful. Then on the other, we have… people who create their own exceptions to those prohibitions. You’re asking us to trust you that you know better - better than Scripture.

It’s pretty clear from your remarks that you’re a kind and loving person, so please take my remarks in the same spirit:

There is no difference at all between the exception you seek to make for homosexual behavior, and the same kind of exception for fornication. If we take your phrase:

In reading through all of the passages in the scripture which speak of same sex relations, I really do not get the sense that Scripture is actually speaking of people who are constitutionally gay, involved in loving, committed relationships who know the Lord.

... and substitute a few words, we get this:

In reading through all of the passages in the scripture which speak of fornication, I really do not get the sense that Scripture is actually speaking of people who are involved in loving, committed relationships who know the Lord.

Would you say that we should also revise the teachings of Scripture on the matter of sex before or outside of marriage?

If so, then you are rejecting the clear word of Scripture in favor of your own theories about what God wants for us. You are saying that you know better than Scripture what God wants for us.

You’re of course free to believe that you know better than Scripture what God wants for us, but you’re not free to assert (without opposition) that because you believe this, even with the deepest sincerity and the best of intentions, then the church should revise its teachings on sexual morality - teachings based on Scripture, and confirmed over the last two centuries by the entire church catholic.

You entered this discussion asking why we are so quick to label those who disagree with us as “heretics.” I’d say that on this issue - whether homosexual behavior fits within the parameters of Christian sexual morality - you’re right. We are quick to label those who disagree with us as heretics. The reason is that amending the Bible’s prohibition of homosexual behavior as sinful, using a list of exceptions you’ve invented without a shred of Scriptural support, is basically the heresy of gnosticism. That’s why we label it heretical.

I tried to write that so it didn’t sound harsh, but I’m afraid it does. But it’s just the truth. There is no other way to get to “the Bible doesn’t condemn homosexual behavior in loving committed relationships” without asserting that you know better than scripture, that your authority - that of experience - trumps the authority of Scripture.

That’s why I said earlier that at its heart, this debate is about the authority of Scripture and whether this church is a church under that authority.

Grace17033,

Greetings this fine day!

Just a few things. First, why do we care whether gays are born or made; why do we care to determine constitutionality? Is it because we do not think someone would choose something so, well, ‘aberrant’? If same sex coupling is beautiful, lovely, normal; if being homosexual is something to celebrate, why would God (or St. Paul) damn a straight man for marrying another man? Or are we suggesting that gay men are so different from straight men; that being gay as a man is like a straight man being pregnant; if we are saying that the two natures are so different that to cross sides is a bit like a blue-eyed person getting a brown eye transplant; if we are saying anything like this, are we not also then saying that the difference between a straight man and gay man is so great that not only has Scripture (in Romans) forbade them from crossing over nature’s strict lines, but that it is hardly even possible to equate a straight man with a gay man: the very word ‘man’ becomes useless if they are indeed THAT different?

Second, our seemingly endless fascination with finding genes for certain behaviors is truly troubling. But there is another way to look at all this: most gay advocates don’t care about the genetic component at all. Why? Because they have allied themselves with the transgendered folks. You see, gays tell you one moment that nature does not make mistakes; that God made them gay and NOTHING can change them. The next moment they are pointing to their trans-sexual friends saying how sad it is that God and nature make such terrible mistakes, and how wonderful it is that such creatures can change. Genetics is merely a smoke-screen: what matters is what a person FEELS or BELIEVES he or she is: if a man says he is a woman trapped in a man’s body, who are you to deny it? You get the point.

And surely then you get the other point: If a man IS what he SAYS he is, irrespective of genes, then homophobics are what they say they are: they are saying that their aversion to homosexuality and their aversion to equating homosexual sex with heterosexual sex, is rooted in their very essence. There is no way to argue “nature” for one group and yet “nurture” for another merely because one prefers the former’s politics over the latter’s. If I say that my “homophobia” is part of who I am; if I say that no one would “choose” to be like this (being so apparently unpopular); why would anyone attempt to change me, or keep me from serving as a priest, if God honors diversity, if He made all things without mistake and loves all people just as they are?

Plus, the pro-gay genetics argument falls apart really quickly: there are all sorts of loving, kind, gentle and meaningful people who contribute greatly to the world and yet are the victims of horrific genetic and pre-natal abnormalities. Did God create these? If so, why do we try to heal people of the things God has created? Why is there a Jerry Lewis Telethon for Muscular Dystrophy; why is there a foundation for spina bifida or hemophilia?

OK. Let’s grant your point: God (through Paul) was not damning homosexual marriage. Fine. But how is gay marriage a sacrament; and, if gay advocates are right in their insistence (you must know the HRC’s pro-gay symbol, an = sign) that gay and straight marriage are indeed equal, what IS the sacrament of marriage that is equal in these two very different forms of coupling? No one has answered this, as far as I know.

I wonder too, why “two” gay men or “two” gay women constitute a marriage. I understand why a straight man and woman make a marriage; but where do we get this idea—seemingly inherent in us and never questioned—that marriage is between “two” people? Why? Or is gay marriage really just so much pretend and imitation; is it straight marriage in drag, so to speak, insisting that it is THE SAME? Why two men; why two women? There is not, at least to me, ANY logical reason that gay and lesbian marriages must consist of two people. Clearly, however, the sacrament of Christian marriage does indeed have a defined reason for uniting ONE man and ONE woman.

Just some more thoughts.

May the Peace of the Lord be always with you!

BG

Hi, again,

Gulfstream, I’m sorry to hear about your gay friends. Are they committed Christian believers? It sounds like to me they really need your prayers and your witness. It might help to read a copy of “The Velvet Rage,” written by the gay psychologist, Alan Downs. He really addresses this issue of infidelity, and casual sex in parts of the gay sub-culture, and how this can all be linked with things such as internalized homophobia. However, I think promiscuity in general is something that men tend to struggle with more than women, possible because they experience the sex drive differently. But, I’m certainly no expert!

I think bi-sexual and transsexual Christians should seek the Lord concerning his will for their lives in this matter, Gulfstream. We all need to trust Him in everything.

Gillian,

I agree with you that the Scripture is silent in the matter of sexual orientation. And, I personally do not think that Johnathan and David were gay, that Ruth and Naomi were lesbians, that Jesus and John were lovers, or that the apostle Paul was a repressed homosexual. God have mercy!!

I, myself, have struggled with this question. Why is the Scripture silent? I don’t know Gillian. But, you see, the Scripture is also silent concerning people who are born intersexual,(hermaphrodites) who may actually have the sexual characteristics of both sexes at
the same time. What are they to do?

Also, the Scripture does not tell us explicitly as Christians that things such as slavery are immoral or that we are to oppose slavery. Why was this not made crystal clear to the church centuries ago. Again, I just don’t know. And, yet, Christians felt led by God to be right there in the forefront of the abolution movement. (Of course, concerning this issue there were differing opinions in the church, as well.)

Gillian, I think that God has also given us the witness of the Holy Spirit, and we can trust Him in all things. Now I realize that some may use what I’m saying as a blatant excuse to ignore the word of God, or as an occasion for sin, something like, “Oh, the Holy Spirit is leading me to rob the 7-Eleven.” But, that’s not where I’m coming from Gillian. There are faithful gay people whose partnerships show the “fruits of the Spirit,” who truly have a love for the Lord, and a zeal for the gospel.

Jackie,
It’s very nice to meet you also. I have certainly met Christian people who have claimed to be ex-gay, and I know that I am not in a position to judge or to discourage anyone from following what they feel is God’s will for their lives.

It may very well be that people experience same-sex relations for many reasons. Perhaps not all are constitutionally gay, or for some there may be a strong element of bi-sexuality present which enables them to eventually move toward a more heterosexual position. I don’t know.

But, Jackie, I have also read and heard heartbreaking testimonies from gay people who had struggled for years against same sex attractions to the place of despair and even thoughts of suicide who finally found peace and a fruitful ministry for the Lord once they accepted this was how God made them to be for His own purpose. (Many were once part of the ex-gay movement.) If you have a chance go to the websites of Courage U.K. or “Evangelicals Concerned” and read some of the stories shared there.

Everyone more later. Have to run to work. I will try to be back later this evening to respond to the other comments. Again, thanks so much for sharing with me. God bless!!

TBWSF,

You have no claim to the inheritance of Wilberforce and others that abolished the slave trade. Wilberforce was an unashamed believer in the inspired Word of God.  He believed in applying it to all walks of life. Wilberforce, Newton and others recognized that the thread of God’s revelation through Scripture was to push against culture for liberty and freedom for slaves. By contrast, the flow of Scripture pushes against culture in the other direction by consistently condeming sexual immorality, including the homosexual behavior. Never is it endorsed or tolerated. Never. It is the one thing God tells us to flee, rather than confront. 

If Wilberforce was here today, I suspect he would be leading the charge against abortion in Congress and our state legislatures, bringing discriptions of brutal late term abortions to the public eye just as he did conditions in the slave trade. I doubt he would be invited to speak in the so called “mainline” Episcopal seminaries!

Grace17033, there is an excellent book I would recommend SLAVES, WOMEN, AND HOMOSEXUALS:
Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis
by William J. Webb. It was reviewed in a June 8, 2002 Christianity Today article. It provides a very helpful discussion regarding the distinction between the treatment of slaves and sexual morality in the New Testament.

Grace, if I may jump in, I’m not sure why certain evils not being explicitly addressed in Scripture - slavery, in your example - should lead us to believe such things are not evil.  Does Scripture address, even loosely, consumption of pornography by an unmarried man?  What about beating one’s wife?  Or leaving a baby locked in a car in the middle of summer?  Or torture?

The Church (indeed, most moral persons) finds it can draw the appropriate conclusions regarding these acts.

Since the behavior in question is explicitly addressed, I’m not sure of your point, anyway.  But, I’m admittedly coming in late.

Grace,

I appreciate your inquiring nature, but you have to come down to brass tacks at some point.  Either you follow the basic truth set out in Scripture, or you don’t.  Talking about being “constitutionally” gay, or hermaphroditic, or born with a club foot or a withered arm is not talking about how God created people - it is talking about our NATURAL state - which is a fallen state.  Our natural state is something we have to contend with on a regular basis in order to follow God’s will.

What about a young man who has left an abusive relationship and his wife won’t grant a divorce?  He finds a nice girl, they move in together and their relationship is one of joy and kindness and fruits of the Spirit.  He’s still committing adultery, it is still wrong, no matter how sad the situation is.  We have to trust that what God wants for us is the right thing, and is included in the Scriptures.  The Scriptures cover thousands of years of humanity’s relationship with God, and believe me, there is nothing new under the sun, and nothing that God is not aware of.

Regarding hermaphrodites, I understand it to be fairly unusual. This is clearly a wedge issue, designed to call into question the normal state of development in humans. Normally, these children will have XX female or XY male chromosomes. Often a sex is “assigned” based on this issue. Hormones can be used to push genital development toward one sex or the other. What is most important is that the parents are consistent in raising the child as a male or female, ie in clothes, relationship patterns, etc. Whether the fact that an infant can be “pushed” toward being male or female by environment or medications “proves” that sex is an artificial characteristic, I don’t know.

Remember that unusual situations make for bad policy. We should make policy based on normal, usual situations and not get caught up with “outliers”, statisticly speaking. Obviously, these folks are people too and need to be approached with sensitivity and compassion. There may be situations which are difficult to discern the truth about. That’s why there is grace, NOT so that people can sleep with whoever they wish to and “change sex” at will.

I’m reminded of the Biblical concept that we should be content in the state that we have been called to. I would think that in general, if you were raised in a certain sex, you were probably “called” to be that sex, even if at times it may seem otherwise. Remember that sexual identity has as much to do with “roles” in society as it does with plumbing. That may seem a bit old fashioned to those accustomed to the increasing opportunities that both sexes enjoy in terms of employment, such as men being nurses and women at times becoming soldiers. I don’t think that God is SO concerned about our means of employment as He is our relationships in family, community, church, etc. The discontent that some feel in their sexual identity may also have something to do with societal prejudice against certain job or interest roles of each sex, such as a man interested in art or cooking (He must be gay, they say) or a woman who loves construction (she kind of butch isn’t she?).

We need to give people the freedom to be who they choose, but within Biblical boundries. I think those boundries are actually quite generous, but do not extend to same sex intercourse, etc.

Grace - I agree that it is difficult to listen to the stories and remain untouched. 

I know alcoholics and addicts who are productive, well-loved members of society.  Are we to affirm them because they seem happy in their lives? 

Matt discusses the fruit of the spirit issue in detail in his multi-part series.

Where do you stand on the issue of prostitutes in Nevada?  Their profession is legal there.  Many have families they support with this income.  What will you tell them?

I’m back. Greg. Please don’t worry. I know that you’re not trying to be harsh or unkind, but are only sharing your honest convictions with me. I absolutely do not believe that heterosexual people should be having sex outside of marriage. To my mind, we can not counsel especially our young people in this issue strongly enough. I think the essence of marriage is a loving, life-long, committed relationship to each other and before God. I also think that gay people need to maintain mutually faithful, life-long committed relationships as well. (I’m not advocating for a double standard.) I just can’t agree that the Scripture is speaking concerning sexual orientation or against committed ,loving gay unions as we understand them today.

But, I am unclear how this relates exactly to gnosticism. I understand gnosticism as a heresy which denied the humanity of our Lord, and rejected the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Greg, I honestly, don’t feel that someone could be a gnostic, and even be a Christian at all.

I realized the gnostics also claimed to have some kind of secret knowledge. Are you thinking of this, maybe? But, I don’t feel this is the same thing as differing concerning the interpretation of the Scripture.

Greg, I think right now we will not agree concerning this issue. But, I feel so strongly that our unity is in the person and work of Christ. Is this something which need divide us as Christians? I do not believe people should walk away from each other or their church over this matter. God will help us work this through together.

God have mercy, Bill. You have my mind in knots, here. Yikes.   I’m going to have to really consider and sleep on your comments, before I can respond. God bless!!

Thank you for your recommendation, Timothy. I know your one comment was not directed to me, but I just wanted to say Amen! relating to Wilberforce. I think he would have definitely spoken out in defense of the unborn, and also against euthanasia. (I myself am very pro-life, and personally feel our mainline denominations need to take a stronger stand in this area relating to the abortion issue.)

Hi, Phil,

How are you? I was just trying to share that sometimes Scripture may not explicitly mention an issue that Christians must address such as the rejection of slavery as immoral or the matter of sexual orientation.

Gillian,

This question of the Scripture and divorce is difficult. To my mind, our culture, sadly, has a very permissive attitude toward divorce. I don’t feel that divorce is ever the ideal will of God. Jesus spoke very strongly concerning this.

However, Gillian we live in a broken, fallen world, and I think sometimes divorce can be the lesser of the evil. I once had a friend who was married to a man who threatened and physically abused her on a regular basis. She landed more than once at the doctor’s office. Imagine what her children were also going through. At last, she finally left her husband.

Gillian, could you look this woman in the face, and tell her no matter the threats or the abuse, it was God’s will for her to stay with this man. I certainly could not!

And, I think that God forgives divorce, and can allow people another chance.

Jackie,

I don’t feel that we can support addiction which on some level is always harmful. I certainly can’t condone the exploitation of women or sex for pay, either.

Jackie, to my mind we can’t compare loving, mutually faithful relationships among gay people with things like drug addiction or prostitution. They would be so hurt to hear this, I know.

Hurting someone is the last thing I want to do but I truly believe that homosexuality separates one from God.  It is no different than greed or gluttony or gossip.  I can give you another scenario with those sins but the end result is the same.  Once we declare good what God has called evil, we are substituting our judgement for God’s.  I pray that you will be a true sister in Christ to me and also be willing to remind me when I am off the path. 

I have a friend that required me to keep “that religious stuff” out of our friendship.  I did that for years but then decided I would rather have a friend for eternity than one for this brief moment on earth.  I told her so and she relented and is slowly beginning to open to the possibility that there is something out there besides dust and space. 

The reason I cannot agree with you is that I do not believe the Holy Spirit will ever contradict Scripture.  Even the most liberal of theologians agree that Scripture clearly condemns homosexual acts.  Gene Robinson also said in his first 60 minutes interview that his ordination was contrary to Scripture. 

I appreciate your loving heart.  For me I have decided Scripture is either all true or a total sham.  I have decided it is truly The Word of God.

Hi Grace17033, there are loving, mutually faithful, consensual relationships among adult siblings as well.  They would also be hurt to hear a comparison with things like drug addiction or prostitution.

Do you support legalizing such loving, mutually faithful, consensual relationships as a matter of justice?  Also polyamorous relationships, as long as loving, mutually faithful, consensual, and filled with the fruits of the spirit?

Divorce is truly a tough issue.  Jesus said that Moses allowed divorce because of our hardness of heart.  If every husband were to love his wife as Christ loved the Church then the majority of marriages would remain in tact and likewise, if the wife were to submit to the headship of Christ and her husband.  Even more importantly if men and women were to enter marriage with these commitments on their hearts and a full commitment to Christ, divorce would never be an issue.  Unfortunately, you are right, sometimes divorce is the lesser of two evils because we are fallen and our nature is to serve our own desires.  I also believe divorce is a sin that can be forgiven - as are almost all the others.

“God hates divorce.”

But it does appear that there are situations (infidelity, unequally yoked, and certainly life threatening situations) where divorce is allowed.  Like any sin, repenting can provide a road to forgiveness.

However, I see no option for remarrying.  The divorced are called to remain single until a reuniting is viable.  If this was upheld, I believe most of us would think a little harder before marrying and again before divorcing.

Right now it is too easy to think of the greener grass when we get bored.

Certainly one of the Christian Church’s biggest failures in the West is our lack of preparation required of the espoused and a serious lack of discernment in who we provide this sacrament for.

Can you tell I have two teenagers?

Grace:

“I just can’t agree that the Scripture is speaking concerning sexual orientation or against committed ,loving gay unions as we understand them today.”

Grace,

“As we understand them today” is the phrase that betrays you. Just who is the “we” that understands them today? Certainly not me. And what substance does this “understanding” have? You need to define the “we” because many of us are not willing to be included. Your phrase is very presumptive, and assumptive, and is at the bottom of your very weak arguements. You assume that “we” understand the gay matter in a unified way. Simply ain’t so.

You propose a loving attitude in all things. Admirable. But dangerous. True love requires one to call out those who are not following God’s call and save them from themselves.

One of my most disagreeable experiences was when I attended a local parish while on the road, shortly after GC03 and was subjected to a sermon wherein the Rector admonished all that the “love God, love thy neighbor” couplet was the only commandment with merit and the rest of the Bible was “rubbish” (his word). Fully half of his congregation was holding their forheads and staring at the floor. He had less than 100 there that morning, as the only ECUSA parish in a city of 90,000. Some witness. I couldn’t get out of there fast enough. What a scholar. What a witness.

But, I am unclear how this relates exactly to gnosticism. I understand gnosticism as a heresy which denied the humanity of our Lord, and rejected the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Greg, I honestly, don’t feel that someone could be a gnostic, and even be a Christian at all.

I refer to gnosticism in a very general sense to describe the notion that the truth of personal experience trumps the truth found in Scripture. Again, to put it very simply, you can either say:

- “Scripture says this; but my experince says different. I’m going with Scripture.”

or:

- “Scripture says this; but my experince says different. I’m going with my experience.”

That’s what you’re doing when you say:

<i>I just can’t agree that the scripture is speaking concerning sexual orientation or against committed ,loving gay unions as we understand them today.</i>

You’re going with your experience over what the Bible teaches.

And again, it’s not about interpretation of Scripture. Scripture is very clear - note the Walter Wink quote above (and note that he’s someone on the ‘other side’). There is simply no way to get to your point of view without deciding that your experience is to be trusted over Scripture. That’s fine if that’s what you want to do, but the Anglican church has decided that it’s a church under the authority of Holy Scripture (Lambeth Quadrilateral, 39 articles, numerous resolutions and such). That position is obviously mutually exclusive of the position that says otherwise - one that says, ‘under the authority of Holy Scripture on some things, but on other things, it’s what we decide for ourselves is right.’

And then there’s the idea that “what we understand today” regarding homosexual relationships is somehow different from what they understood when the Bible was written. To believe that there weren’t gay relationships back then that were every bit as loving and committed as what we find now, is to really go out on a limb. It is, frankly, a line that’s being sold (and sold quite well) by gay activists - that what they have now is so much different, and so much better, than what other gays had just a century ago… let alone 20 centuries ago. Again, I don’t mean to sound harsh, but that’s just preposterous.

Follow their logic:

Homosexuality is natural and normal and healthy, because look at all the great thinkers and artists and leaders who were gay throughout history: Oscar Wilde, Leonardo, Socrates. Why, homosexuals have been around since man walked upright, and look at the enormous contributions they’ve been making for thousands of years!

Oh, but their homosexuality was completely different from the stuff we do today.

Seriously, Grace - please examine that line of thinking before using it to contradict the clear word of God.

Grace, I don’t see why prostitution can’t be compared to homosexual relationships.  Why do you assume sex for pay has to be exploitative?  Does it, always?  What if it were legalized - don’t you think there would be many transactions in which both parties freely choose to participate?  Isn’t that what happens in Nevada?

Also, where do you derive the schema in the first place that relationships should be monogamous, loving, mutually faithful and consensual?

You see, when you choose to undermine one part of Scripture, you inevitably undermine it all.

My dear Grace17033,

Please forgive me! I did not mean to be so complex. I have a penchant for waxing prolix. I am sorry if my points were not quite clear. I strive for clarity but I often miss the mark.

Greg Griffith mentions Oscar Wilde. Wilde is one of my faves. It is good to note, I believe, that Wilde embraced his Catholicism at the end of life; I believe he even died with a priest at his side. Every reasonable source suggests that Wilde renounced his homosexuality; he clearly mourned the loss of his wife and family, a loss due to his indiscretions. I mention all this purely for interest. Not all gay heroes celebrate their homosexuality as wonderful or God-given.

It also bemuses me how Socrates is deemed a gay man.

Anyhow, great, great stuff everyone.

Thanks for opening my eyes and strengthening my faith.

Peace.

BG

The real hard issue for many is going against contemporary notions of love and relationships in western civilization, which has elevated the biochemical dependency known as romantic love to the highest high and the greatest good of all, and has made the consommation of this into a virtual requirement for ‘the good life’ and psychological health.

From this flows probably the majority of divorces (not to ignore the hard cases, but I think far more are simply due to one or both spouses “falling out of love”, and the deterioration of the couple once this is ‘realized’ ), and the big civil rights push to let gays have access to this definition of the good life in its fullest sense.

As long as cultural notions of love have priority over scriptural ones, scriptural and traditional approaches to the issue of homosexuality will fall on deaf ears.

Hi, Jack Sparrow,

I was just using this illustration to share that sometimes there can be situations where as Christians we need to make decisons based on general principles such as love for God and neigbor and the individual witness of the Holy Spirit that may not be explicitly addressed in the word of God such as hemaphroditism or I’m feeling this matter of sexual orientation.

But, thanks for sharing your thinking.

That’s ok, Bill. I know you are sharing your heart with me. By constitutionally gay, I’m referring to people who experience homosexuality as an innate part of who they are. I think this is different than folks who choose to be pansexual, who will just sleep with anyone or anything for cheap thrills or out of total amorality.

I feel that the only thing that can ultimately damm someone is a deliberate and willful rejection of the person and work of Christ. Of course, this rejection, and where someone’s heart is at will also be reflected in their whole manner of life, in external actions as well. (This is what Paul means when he speaks of certain behavior as not being indicitive of “inheriting the kingdom of God.”)

But, Bill, the truth is, all of our righteousness, as Paul says is like filthy rags.

None of us can come into a right relationship with God based on our own efforts, or by abstaining from anything. We are put right with God through faith (trust) alone in Jesus Christ. Are you able to agree with this, Bill?

Bill, by my definition of homophobia, I don’t know if you’re homophobic or not, here. But, I can’t feel that homophobia will help us show the love of Christ to gay people or help us reach them with the gospel. Are there any good fruits coming out of homophobia, innate or not, I can’t see it.

Gulfstream,

I’m sorry to hear concerning this Episcopal priest. Unless he was somehow misunderstood, it certainly sounds as if this man doesn’t know the Lord. I hope he is in your prayers.

I just meant Gulfstream that I feel Paul was not addressing the issue of sexual orientation. I know that even today not everyone will agree. But, Gulfstream, what is wrong with allowing freedom of conscience in this matter in the church, as we do with issues relating to divorce and remarriage or the role and ordination of women?  Should we walk away from each other concerning this, or hang in there together trusting that God will help us work through our differences?

What does everyone say?

I believe we are getting side tracked on this thread.  The point of Matt’s+ piece is to address Tom Woodward’s accusation that the EC has been falsely accused of departing from the Christian faith and being truly Anglican.

I believe Tom has helped us to make our case against the EC, even though he does not seem to realize this.  I also believe that Matt+ has done super job of meticulously making the case that the charges against the EC are real and valid.

Tom argument is that the so-called Orthodox are the ones who are not Anglican nor Christian because we have twisted the words of Christ and misunderstand what love requires.

Contrary to Tom’s position, Matt and others (including myself) have tried to address the charges and unsupported assertions Tom has made.  Truly, Christ manifest the biblical understanding of Love, which is that God loves us but does not accept sin.  Love is not the same as acceptance of our sin or approval of it.  Those who God loves He disciplines.  However, this biblical understanding of love is lost today in the EC because love is not simply the loving of the person God has created but also accepting and approving of that person.

Some seem confused why what we do in private matters.  What we do both in the public sphere and the private arena reveals who we are.  As such, what happens in both matters.  Those in leadership must be held to a higher standard than others.  This applies certainly too ordained persons but also to the laity.  The idea that we hold people accountable and apply discipline when ethical and moral boundaries set by God are breached is an anathema to the leadership of the EC today.  They see it, not as discipline and necessary but as judgment.  Judgment and intolerance are the unforgivable sin today in the EC.

Tom twisted my words to say I accused him of “fearing” being intolerant.  I did not.  What I said is he and others see intolerance as being judgmental and as such that is the greatest of all sins in the EC today.  Tom and those who agree with him are fully intolerant of the Traditionalists in the church today.  This is why I have said Tom and others are the pot calling the kettle black.  What Tom and his supporters are accusing the Traditionalists of doing; they are in reality doing themselves to the Traditionalist.  They are being fully intolerant!

What really caused Tom to react is that as Matt+ built his case and proved that Tom and others were embracing teachings outside of the Anglican Tradition and the Christian Faith, it came out that, as a false teacher, some would not commune Tom.  This caused Tom to react saying that this was priestly abuse and imply that a presentment and civil suit might be brought if such was to be the case.  We see in Tom’s reaction that he is not truly as charitable as he presents if his buttons are pushed!  In this case, not being communed at the altar rail is one of Tom’s and other major buttons.  Basically, it is an act that says we are not part of the same common Faith, but that is what this entire discussion has been about.  There are two entirely different Faiths in the EC.  There are two entirely different Gospels in the EC.  While there are still those who wish to deny this reality, those on both sides have come to the same conclusion.  Continuing as one faith community is no longer possible because we do not have a common faith.

We should all thank Tom for his part in participating in this discussion.  Whether he realizes it or not, not only has he brought a clarity that is needed, but also he has shown how those who claim to be moderates really aren’t.

The days ahead will be difficult but also exciting. 

Yes, it is time for a New Reformation.  A reformation where we return to a true and more correct understanding of the Christian Faith and a proper understanding of what it means to be Anglican. 

Yes, these are exciting times!

Phil, I’m honestly not trying to undermine the Scripture. Sex for pay can never be faithful, truly loving, or committed. There’s nothing monogamous about it either. It’s just impossible, friend.

Grace, Paul had something to say about this in the sixth chapter of Romans.

11In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. 12Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. 13Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness. 14For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.
Slaves to Righteousness
15What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. 18You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.

I have come to detest the term homophobia.  It means a fear of homosexuals.  I do not fear someone because they choose to live out an attraction to someone of the same sex.  But I do fear for them and for anyone who would call righteous what God has called sin. 

We all sin, we are all fallen creatures struggling with temptation on any given day. 

Many things are innate to us.  There is a proven link that is hereditary for alcoholism.  Therefore, alcoholism is innate, so how can you discredit it as a valid life choice but not homosexuality?

Grace, alot of your points are addressed in parts 5 and 6 above

Grace, I think you will find that the orthodox simply don’t believe that a reasonable argument can be made that Scripture permits a gay lifestyle, rather it is expressly prohibited. To suggest that Paul’s letters are somehow are rendered ineffective by the fact that some now believe gay people are born that way; or that Paul was deliberately not addressing “constitutionally” gay people is way too much of a stretch and fails to acknoledge that Holy Scripture was inspired by a God that new all.  Such liberalities, if applied to other passages, render the Bible meaningless. It is no coincidence that some of the strongest advocates ECUSA’s innovations on this issue also disclaim the reliability of Scripture regarding the physical resurection.

Grace, I think the only thing that should separate us is if one side is preaching a different Gospel.  I think Matt has more than provided adequate proof that this is the case. 

I can live with another denomination such as LDS making changes to the Bible because I believe in freedom of choice.  I cannot, however, stay within a denomination where the shepherds feel free to dismiss God’s Words as uninformed.  Godly scholarship is one thing but as has been pointed out numerous times, even the scholars on the other side of this divide, agree that Scripture is clear in its condemnation of SSU.  This is no little thing they are asking. They are challenging the authority of the Word of God.

Hi Grace,

You sure are prolific tonight!

My point was not about divorce, but the person involved bahaving as though he wasn’t still married.  I am divorced, and have come to terms with it - he divorced me, the “unequally yolked” issue, etc.  I have also tried (and sometimes suceeded) to stay within God’s will as an unmarried person. 

The point is - it is HARD, and no-one is saying differently.  No matter what our “orientation” is, our natural urge for intimacy, physical or otherwise, is strong. It is a struggle to be obedient to God’s will for us.  I have to know that He wants what is best for me - like a parent.

“Should we walk away from each other concerning this, or hang in there together trusting that God will help us work through our differences?

Our differences here are more than just a disagreement about a minor issue - you are questioning the authority of Scripture.  It does not matter how nicely you state it, you are rejecting the clearly stated intention of God in His Word.  That is a breaking point in a Church that holds Scripture as the foundation of faith.

Grace17033,

Thank you for your graciousness. You reply is very gentle.

Yes, of course, I do believe that no one’s righteousness is particularly clean in the sight of God. I also believe that all have sinned—alas, even I have sinned!—and fall short of God’s glory. And I do believe, ultimately, that it is only by grace that we are saved, through faith: salvation is God’s gift; He is the source and genesis of freedom.

With that said, I also believe that faith without works is dead; and I believe that God is at work in me so that I might act and choose according to His good purpose. My faith, in other words, is proven by my actions; where there is no action, there is no faith. What is the action God expects of us? In part it is found here: If you love me you will keep my commandments. As you know, Jesus’ gospel is filled with things people must do: Go wash, come here, go sell, go tell, go confess, go silently, go to court, go and sin no more. All these indicate that Jesus expects us to be more than just about faith: He expects us to obey.

I disagree with you when you write “None of us can come into a right relationship with God ... by abstaining from anything.” I disagree totally, I think. God asks us to abstain from rebellion, from sin, from idolatry, from disobedience and lovelessness; He asks us to abstain from gluttony, gossip, pride, adultery, pornographic addictions. If you are suggesting that we cannot do this alone, in some sort of vacuum, then I agree. But abstention is a sign of the presence of God’s grace: He is at work in us so that we will choose the right things. Repentance is to be in a state of “not doing,” of abstention. Repentance is not a feeling. It’s the cessation of a certain action. Contrition is a feeling; repentance is an act of the will: it is to stop doing what is wrong.

I am a Christian who exists in a constant state of disobedience and obedience. I am at one moment repentant; at another, I’m unrepentant. But I do not attempt to justify my sinfulness by blaming God for making me sinful; nor do I justify my sin by claiming that I am being true to myself; nor do I justify my sin by denying the sin. This is the crux of the issue, really: Is homosexuality a sin? If it is, well, this discussion is over. I have stayed entirely on task here, arguing that it is easy to show that homosexuality is sin because sin is inherently irrational; I have attempted to show that heresy is indeed afoot in TEC and the church in general.

Of course, I may have big holes in my understanding of logic. I would love for someone to point those out to me, particularly about my conviction that homosexual “marriage” CAN NEVER be sacramental.

Peace—as always—to you, dear Grace17033.

BG

I see now more where you are at in your thinking, Greg, relating to gnosticism. Thanks.

Well, what can I say, brother… We just don’t agree. I think it’s true that even in ancient times, there were gay people who cared for one another. But, I’m not feeling this is the concern expressed by Paul especially in Rom.

But, I’m open, Greg, to the possibility that I may be wrong. Are you also open to even the possibility of misinterpreting God’s word in this area?

Either way Greg, I want to say again I don’t feel this is something that should completely seperate us as Christians? Our unity is in Christ. I certainly can’t speak for everyone who holds to a more pro-gay position in the church, but I can absolutely say that I am in total agreement with you concerning the gospel, and the central tenets of the Christian faith. I sincerely believe that God will help us walk through this together.

Guys, I hope you will bear with me. It can be hard to fine the time to address all these comments. At some point, I will have to go. But, I appreciate the chance to share with Christian believers who have a different point of view. Be back later.

Grace, I repeat my question: what is your framework in the first place for presuming relationships should be faithful, truly loving, committed and monogamous?  Why do you feel that is the ideal?  What source tells you that should be so?

I know the Source that tells me so, but I am not willing to approach it as a cafeteria.  If you pick up one end of the stick, you pick up the other.

Grace’s question is right onto the center of this thread, if not one step further.  It is agreed that TEC is heretical in theology and practice; justly accused and case proven.  Now what?  What will a better EC look like?  If it doesn’t look like All Saints Pasadena, then Truro?  What constructive, holy tenets are driving us besides centrality of scripture?  That one is necessary but does not a complete Body make.  A new thread would be a good idea, but these issues must become the basis for future work if we would put hands to the plow.

Grace,

You ask me if I could be open to the possibility that I’m interpreting the Scripture wrong, but it would probably be best if I asked you: Can you point to anything in Scripture that indicates that’s what I could be doing?

As we’ve been over and over, Scripture is clear about homosexual behavior - as distinct from “orientation,” I should point out. There’s nothing sinful about having same-sex attraction.

The matter of whether someone is “born gay” is entirely beside the point, as we’ve been over here in the past. It’s a settled question: The plight of the homosexual who is “born that way,” and succumbs to urges the Bible describes as sinful, is the common plight of all sinners - gay and straight alike. The Bible clearly condemns drunkenness as sinful, and we’ve discovered that some people are genetically pre-disposed to alcoholism, but we haven’t overturned the Bible’s teachings about drunkenness. So why should we do so with homosexual behavior? We may one day find that there are genetic factors that predispose some people to adultery, or thievery, or murder; surely you’re not suggesting that as we discover genetic predisopsitions for sinful bevahior, we cross them off the list; yet that’s exactly what you’re proposing with homosexuality.

I should be very clear: It’s extremely difficult for me, knowing all the gay friends I’ve had over the years and continue to have to this day, to have to conclude that their behavior is a sin of which they should repent. But I can either be a Christian who reads the clear words of Scripture and, difficult as it is, try and live by them; or I can be something else. I have chosen to be the former. Over the past several years I have also had to do some serious adjustment of my opinions on divorce. Before that, I had to do a 180 on abortion. To say the least, none of those transitions was easy.

I’ll say it again: This is not about “interpretation.” The Bible could not be clearer about its prohibition of gay sex. So while I asked you up above to give me an example from Scripture that suggests I’m mis-interpreting it, it was in fact rhetorical more than anything else: I know there’s nothing in Scripture that nullifies the prohibitions, much less speaks approvingly of homosexual beahvior. You won’t be able to give me any examples I asked for, because they’re not their.

That means we’re back to the simple fact that you have decided - relying not Scripture but on your own hunch - that homosexual behavior is not, after all, a sin. It means we’re back to the simple but uncomfortable conclusion that you are following a gnostic line of reasoning regarding this issue. And again, that’s fine if that’s what you want to do, and I’m not asking you to all of a sudden come around to the position that it’s taken many of us years to take; but I am trying to stress that when you ask, ‘Why does this issue have to divide us?’, the answer is that in a church that draws its authority from Holy Scripture, you cannot accommodate those who assert that Holy Scripture is not authoritative. So to answer your question, ‘does it have to divide us?’, the answer is yes. It MUST divide us, or else it will destroy us.

Grace, have you looked carefully at some of the dioceses that pioneered the blessing of these relationships?  These matters do not stand in isolation; notice that there are generally other agenda items associated with the movement.  Look at Newark for activism in such areas as abortion and even assisted suicide and the like, often proceeding along with the gender agenda. These are issues that startled my soul and showed me the direction the church has taken.  Former Bp. Spong (for just one activist) is among the most popular teachers in the LGBT community;  it has even been said here recently that he was responsible for leading more unchurched people into the Episcopal Church than any other.  Considering his rejection of the literal Creedal points in his 12 Theses, shouldn’t this give us pause and help to explain some of the problems in TEC?  Notice what particular deputies sponsored and vocally advocated troubling measures at the General Convention; detailed information can be found, especially with the wealth of live-blogging that occurred during this past GC.  Some of these issues have been discussed on this site.  We are conditioned by the spin of pleasant-sounding euphemisms in today’s church, but do research beneath the surface; it will open your eyes.

I believe it is our mistake that we don’t say much any more about celibacy; it is a high calling that, historically, has often been dedicated to the Lord and honored in the church.  Of course, it is open to people of all orientations to choose, above all, the love of God and the beauty of holiness.

Sarah,

I have never heard anyone in the church advocate for polyamorous relationships. I have heard arguments expressed in the pagan community. (But, from what I’ve read they have not had good results.) I just can’t see it. God have mercy! We all have enough difficulty finding the time and energy to express into one relationship. I can’t imagine the kind of jealousies and resentments that would soon flare, and a thousand other difficulties. I think in monagamy we are able to develop trust and love, as well as enhance the development of our psychic maturity and health.

Phil, you also posed a similar question. Jesus, also, affirmed for us monogamy. I can’t see any reason why our Lord’s teaching should only apply to heterosexual relationships.

Sara, I have never heard of the type of relationship you shared among siblings. But, I’m sure it’s not unheard of. Among other things, surely there would be genetic concerns. I see nothing to suggest that people have an innate, unchangeable orientation toward members of their own family. I mean there are people who have sexual relations with animals, and might feel it’s fine to marry their own dog.  But, I don’t feel this is fair to compare all of this to gay unions.

Well Grace, could you tell us why?  What is your basis for your assumptions?  Jesus never said that siblings should not marry or be intimate.  He also never said that humans should not mate with animals.  What guidelines do you use to decide these things are wrong and homosexual unions are blessed?

Jackie,

The only gospel I know is the death and resurrection of Jesus for our sins. Paul says it’s by this gospel we are “saved.” I wanted to quote the exact chapter and verse, but I think my son swiped my Bible on his way our the door to youth group. Teenagers are quick.

If there are folks in your church who are deviating from this gospel, they are in great error. But, I certainly think people can disagree concerning this whole sexuality issue, and yet agree concerning the gospel. What do you think?

Grace,
My answer hasn’t changed. The issue is not homosexuality, it is the Authority of Scripture.  And more than that - it is the very divinity of Christ.  Have you explored the liberties that ECUSA has allowed its priests?  Do you know what the seminaries are teaching?  How about the high schools?  Do you know that we have bishops (yes Bishops!) who do not believe that Jesus is the only begotten son of God?  or that He was born of the Virgin Mary? or was crucified, died and rose again?  Oh, Grace, there is,unfortunately, so much more.  Either it is the Word of God or it is not.  And, sadly, yes, this is worth breaking away from.  For to remain in an unrepentent church is replace my judgement for that of God. And that I will not do.

Jesus, also, affirmed for us
monogamy. I can’t see any reason why our Lord’s teaching should only apply
to heterosexual relationships. 

Well, other than the fact that Scripture condemns homosexual relationships in so many words….

Grace 17033 I am ill.  I will not quote scripture.  Do you feel ill?

Grace,there’s also passages like Ephesians 5:1-17 that make the commands to be imitators of God and to walk out a lifestyle in gratitude for what Jesus did and then show what that lifestyle isn’t,with immorality and whatever impurity(including sex outside of marriage in whatever form)at the top of the list,going so far as to say ‘let no one deceive you with empty(I like Phillips’ word there,plausible)words and not to ‘participate in unfruitful deeds of darkness’and that in the light those things are seen for what they are.
If we hold the Scripture and the creeds(Christianity itself) to be true
we don’t have the luxury to affirm things contrary to the teaching of Scripture and 2000 years of practice of the Church.
It’s not an in part proposition that we can pick and chose what we’ll live by.

No, Grace17033:  It’s not a partisan deal.  All are imitators, some fall short.  You? Them? All?  Well then, why don’t we get together?

Re: “I have never heard anyone in the church advocate for polyamorous relationships. I have heard arguments expressed in the pagan community.”

Here you go, Grace.

Here’s the web site for Unitarian Universalists for Polyamory Awareness:
http://www.uupa.org/index

And here’s an article about polyamory—full text below:

Some gay activists want church to accept multiple partners as ‘holy’

By Mark Tooley
Institute on Religion and Democracy
Monday, August 25, 2003
PHILADELPHIA – When arguing for church acceptance of homosexuality, most advocates talk about monogamy. But others are bolder.

“I am a strong ally of those in healthy, polyamorous relationships,” declared Debra Kolodny. She argued that having multiple sexual partners can be “holy.” Kolodyn was leading a workshop at the WOW (Witness Our Welcome) 2003 convention, an ecumenical gathering for “sexually and gender inclusive Christians.”

Hundreds of homosexual, bisexual and heterosexual people gathered under the “queer” banner in Philadelphia on August 14-17 to urge religious acceptance of non-traditional sexual behaviors.

According to WOW’s schedule brochure, it was sponsored by the homosexual caucus groups in most mainline Protestant denominations, including two special interest groups in the Presbyterian Church (USA) – More Light Presbyterians and That All May Freely Serve – and McCormick Theological Seminary.

Other supporting groups listed in the program included Dignity USA (for Roman Catholics), People for the American Way, the Human Rights Campaign, Episcopal Divinity School, Chicago Theological Seminary (United Church of Christ) and Wesley Theological Seminary (United Methodist).

Kolodny, an author and former national coordinator for The National Bisexual Network, was leading a workshop called “Blessed Bi Spirit: Bisexual People of Faith.” Although focusing mostly on bisexuality, Kolodny, who is Jewish, explained that she could not conclude the session without discussing polyamory.

“There can be fidelity in threesomes,” Kolodny said. “It can be just as sanctified as anything else if all parties are agreed.” But she was careful to stress that polyamory is unacceptable “if there is deceit.”

Kolodny said polyamory does not usually involve simultaneous group sex. But there are exceptions, she admitted, as she recalled a friend of hers who shares a bed with his wife and male partner. When asked by a workshop participant how polyamory was different from “recreational sex,” Kolodny responded that consensual recreational sex could be a part of polyamory. But polyamory usually involves some level of commitment and intimacy.

Noting she herself had never been polyamorous, Kolodny explained that as a busy attorney she simply did not have time to conduct the complicated “negotiations” necessary for “holy” polyamory. But she expressed admiration for persons with the time to organize.

Most of Kolodny’s talk was about bisexuality, not polyamory. “I disagree with the queer movement [when it claims] that sexual orientation is predetermined,” Kolodny said, asserting that the existence of bisexuality “challenges all that.”

“I know a lot of women who chose to become lesbian,” Kolodny said. “Love between two people is always beautiful,” she added, and should be regarded as part of free choice.

“I’m not sure we can make the case for genetic predetermination,” Kolodny stressed, saying sexual preference depends on opportunity, support and spiritual experiences.

Kolodny lamented that the “queer” movement insists on the “party line” of genetic predetermination as part of a “political strategy.”

“The queer movement relies on, ‘We can’t help it. We’re born this way,’” Kolodny said. “It feels so safe. If you don’t say it you’re thrown to the lions and you’re evil.”

She contrasted the insistence on genetic predetermination with the teachings of Judaism and Christianity, which say: “God gives us choices.”

“Free will is essential to our humanity and essential to our being created in the image of God,” Kolodny said. She charged that denying free choice in sex preference was “perpetuating the hetero-patriarchy,” helping the “radical right,” ignoring bisexuality, and making it easier for “hate” to continue.

Rather than creating “absolute poles” of sexual preference, Kolodny said the world includes a wide spectrum of choices. She recalled the hostility of her “dyke” friends when she abandoned her strict lesbianism for bisexuality. Many homosexuals suspect bisexuals of trying to gain the “privileges” of the hetero-patriarchy by seeking sexual partners of the opposite gender.

[continued article]
Another workshop leader who addressed a sexual minority sometimes forgotten by the “queer” movement was the Rev. Erin Swenson, formerly Eric. Swenson is a Presbyterian Church (USA) minister and family counselor whose sex-change operation made Swenson the first post-operative transsexual minister in a major denomination.

Swenson was married with children. But she said that, after suffering for years from a desire to be a woman, she finally divorced and had the operation. “I don’t recommend that any one become transgender,” Swenson said. “It’s a very painful process.”

“Some people accuse me of not being a woman,” Swenson complained, citing “ultra-feminists.” Swenson prefers being called simply “Erin and a child of God” to any label. “High heels are very uncomfortable,” Swenson playfully admitted.

“Transgender people won’t come to your church unless they truly know they are safe there,” Swenson warned. Even ostensibly “gay” friendly congregations are sometimes not prepared for transgender people. “Get your church to be ‘trans’ friendly,” Swenson urged, including providing bathrooms not marked male or female.

Swenson described the United Church of Christ as “miles ahead of anybody” in making itself open to transgender people. The Presbyterian Church (USA), in contrast, declined Swenson’s offer to volunteer in the creation of church resource materials for transgender church members.

“Transgendered people threaten communities because they threaten our assumptions,” Swenson concluded. “It is threatening but also freeing.”

Leading a workshop on “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Questioning Issues in the Roman Catholic Church,” Mary Louise Cervone complained that tolerance rather than justice is the norm in America today. A former president of Dignity USA, Cervone, with her same-sex partner at her side, wondered how many “nameless men and women” must die before this country moves beyond tolerance to freedom for all people.

“Our best hope for change rests not with bishops and the pope but with Catholic people,” Cervone insisted. “Change won’t come from the top down. The Catholic people must demand freedom.

Cervone affirmed her lesbianism as a “gift of God.” She confessed she has a hard time attending the Catholic Church, because the “church is not where we find freedom. It’s where we go to hide.”

“But you can’t kick me out,” Cervone declared defiantly. “Where in religion did we get the idea that some people are more worthy than others?” she asked.

The Rev. Jorge Lockwood, who is Global Praise Coordinator for the United Methodist Church’s Board of Global Ministries, led a workshop called “Redeeming Our Bodies, Congregational Song as a Path of Liberation.”

“As queer people, we have another way of looking at the body,” Lockwood said. He complained that churches too often are uncomfortable with the human body and suffer from “liturgical constipation.” He observed that too often people think the “desire of a 25 year old gay man for another 25 year old man is a beautiful thing,” but the desire of a 65 year old for a 25 year is “dirty.”

“We have all learned to challenge Romans,” said the Rev. Mari Castellanos, referring to St. Paul’s letter that, among other Scriptures, is critical of homosexual behavior. Castellanos leads the Justice and Witness Ministries of the United Church of Christ. “We must do likewise with all texts that go against our brothers and sisters that are being claimed as the unerring Word of God.”

But Castellanos also urged the WOW 2003 audience to embrace “justice” issues beyond their own. “When we leave this earth, queer bishops won’t matter as much as whether the hungry are fed,” she insisted, to applause.

“This president and this Congress have systematically torn down the social net that sustained all of us,” Castellanos said. “We must lobby our government on behalf of the poor of the world. Our experience of exile has taught us compassion.”

Castellanos promised that “we will take on scary proposals such as the Marriage Protection Act. We will turn the tide that threatens to obliterate the social contract.” Echoing the name of a radical homosexual group, she insisted: “We must continue to act up!”

Rev. Yvette Flunder, a United Church of Christ pastor from San Francisco, celebrated a string of political victories for pro-homosexuality advocates, including the election of an Episcopal Church homosexual bishop, the arrival of legalized same-sex unions in Canada and the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling against anti-sodomy laws.

“The Holy Ghost can break loose in an atmosphere of injustice and give us more justice in three weeks than many years!” Flunder said. “These wouldn’t have been miracles under Bill Clinton!” she added, citing the irony of pro-homosexuality strides under a conservative government.

[continued article]

The Rev. Troy Perry, founder of the predominantly homosexual Metropolitan Community Churches, asked all the heterosexuals at WOW 2003 to stand and receive applause. “Thank you!!... I know what people do to you,” he told them, saying they pay a price for solidarity with homosexuals.

Perry said he “just got married” to his male partner of 18 years, who has had AIDS for several years. He likened the plight of homosexuals who cannot legally marry to slaves who also had no legal right to marriage.

“I will not give up until every one of us can marry,” Perry insisted, comparing heaven to attending the WOW 2003 conference.

A brief skit produced for the WOW 2003 audience showed three troubled disciples in a storm-tossed boat. One, a young woman, declares: “I am bisexual and can’t find acceptance in the gay community.” A man says, “I am a 19 year old gay. Or am I queer? And I’m Presbyterian. But I’m not sure what that means!” A third person complains she is age 22 but cannot “find a voice” in the gay community.

Then a figure representing Jesus appears, played by a young woman wrapped in the rainbow flag, which is the emblem of the homosexual movement. “Take heart, it is I,” she says. “Do not be afraid.”

Source:
http://www.layman.org/layman/news/2003-news-articles/some-gay-activists.htm

Okay—that’s all the time that I have to find religious advocates of polyamory—there are more.

But that’s not really the issue.  The issue is consistency, to me.

You’ve stated that there are loving, mutually faithful, homosexual relationships and that because of that love and faithfulness and fruits of the spirit, that such relationships should be accepted.  So I pointed out that there were loving, mutually faithful, consensual relationships among adult siblings as well.  Why shouldn’t they be accepted legally?

And why shouldn’t loving, mutually faithful, consensual relationships be accepted that are polyamorous?  Again, as long as they are loving, mutually faithful, consensual, and filled with the fruits of the spirit, what makes them different from homosexual relationships, barring the fact that we have not yet changed the law concerning them?

Grace, “we can’t compare loving, mutually faithful relationships among gay people with things like drug addiction or prostitution. They would be so hurt to hear this, I know.”

According to this statement, you seem very concerned that anyone would hurt the feelings of anyone who is gay.
Have you ever thought about the hurt feelings that come with being rejected by your husband or boyfriend because you are a heterosexual woman. I think this, in its self, is prejudice against the opposite sex yet heterosexuals are expected to accept that rejection with grace and not complain of hurt feelings.
Have you ever thought of the feelings of inadequacy children who are opposite sex of a homosexual father or mother must have because they are the rejected gender.
Then there are the added problems of sexually transmitted diseases while the homosexual person is hunting for a mate.
There are unavoidable hurt feelings all around in this situation - the way to avoid these dangers is to trust Scripture which leads us away from these situations and protects families.

Well, Grace: you’ve pulled out all the stops on Sarah Hey.  She claims to be armed but pacifist (broad definitons). This is orthodoxy, as they say.

Re: “armed but pacifist”. . .

You insult me, churl!!!

I am not a pacifist.

; > )

Signed,

Anglican Samurai Warrior

Grace,

A bishop of the Episcopal Church and professor at Episcopal Divinity School said this:

Audre Lorde, the wonderful Afro-Caribbean lesbian feminist poet, talks about how she began to recognize how similar the writing of a good poem was to the rubbing up against the body of the woman she loved. I think all of that has to do with sacred power. I think a lot of art, religious art, religious music, is very sensual. Particularly in terms of the Catholic tradition, a lot of worship is very sensual.

Really.  And Sarah is right.  There is more.  So much more.

Amazin’ Grace said:

“I have never heard anyone in the church advocate for polyamorous relationships. I have heard arguments expressed in the pagan community. (But, from what I’ve read they have not had good results.) I just can’t see it. God have mercy!”

Well it looks like our Warrior Sarah has shut down THAT line of misinformation. (Way to go, Sarah!)

I have cast you as Amazin’ Grace becuase I truly admire the soft language and calm tone you are able to maintain. It is remarkable that you haven’t resorted to some of the bile and phlegm usually thrown out by some revisionists.

But as much as I admire your even temperament, you are not using the mind God gave you, instead you are caving into the “feelings” thing and not exercising any logical reasoning. You wind up coming off (at least to me) as a whiny Rodney King saying “can’t we all just get along?”.

No, Grace, we can’t all just get along, as long as we are being asked to abandon scripture and bless that which is not blessed, and say sins are forgiven where there is no repentance.

If you are looking for a big happy family that will tolerate “anything-goes”, don’t look to Christianity, at least not the faithful catholic and evangelical majority. We are not ready to go there. You’ll need to found a new denomination, one that will be a tiny imitation of Christianity, like the UU’s.

Feeling snarky.

Has anyone briefed Grace on B001… the rejection of Kendall’s resolution in June… and other things like that? I’m exhausted after a long day’s work, but if anyone would be willing to take up that task, I’d appreciate it (and perhaps, after she gets over the shock, Grace will too).

I held off on addressing the polyamorous issue, but since Sarah has bravely mentioned the unmentionable, I have to concur that she is correct.  As I first began researching this issue around ten years ago, I was under the impression (as are so many kind-hearted heterosexuals) that blessing SSU was about the church’s granting to gay people the same thing that it granted to heterosexuals—the opportunity for the blessing of an exclusive life-long relationship. 

Unfortunately, I read the advocacy literature for myself.  I recommend that anyone who really wants to know what is being asked for needs to read the writings of the late Robert Williams, Carter Heyward, Andrew Sullivan and others. (I suggest a strong stomach before reading some of this stuff.) Exclusive monogamy is the one thing these people do not want.  Rather, they consider the suggestion that gays should be forced to adopt the sexual mores of heterosexual marriage to be insulting.

Also read the scientific literature (or at least statistical summaries) on the association of homosexuality with promiscuity (especially male), intergenerational relationships (not talking about children here), association with various addictions (tobacco, alcohol, drugs), health consequences (not only AIDS),length of relationships.  In considrable comparative contrast to the average heterosexual marriage, homosexual relationships tend to be non-exclusive, short-lived, more often between persons of considerably different ages. 

In addition, although the question of whether homosexuals are “born that way” has come up in this conversation—Fr. Woodward states in the blog article to which Matt is responding that most Episcopalians believe that homosexuality is constitutional—there is absolutely no scientific evidence that homosexual orientation is constitutionally (i.e., not environmentally or behaviorally) determined.

OK, Grace, Jesus affirmed monogamy for us.  Surely, you could see where I was going with this; we know that because of the record of Holy Scripture.  And so, it seems to me that if you want to discard one part which makes you uncomfortable or doesn’t conform to your personal sense of justice or fair play, then you have no basis for trying to uphold other parts.

If people in the church come to you in the future and demand your blessing of their polyamorous relationships, you have no principled, Christian reason - in your exegetical framework - for saying no.  Again: it is not good enough for you to say, “Jesus affirmed monogamy,” by your own reasoning, because Jesus also warned against all porneia, and you arbitrarily discarded that.

Yikes, folks, I’m being swept away by all these comments. Heeelp!! I’ll do my best to respond.

Sarah’s written a book. Aren’t you an attorney, Sarah? I wouldn’t want to run into you in court, I can tell you that.

Gillian,

I’m so sorry to hear about your marriage. It’s true that you need to trust God, and follow what you feel is His will in your life.

It seems to me that the apostle Paul spoke to your situation when he shared in ICor. 7:15. Paul is speaking of the sanctity of marriage. But, then he also shares in a situation where a believer is married to an unbeliever,

But, if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances..

I know that even many conservative, evangelical Christians feel the Scripture is sharing in this situation that it is also permissable for the believer to remarry.

But, of course, I feel that every person needs for themselves to have a peace before the Lord in this matter.

I’ll be praying for you Gillian.

Bill,

Have you ever listened to Fr. Malcom Smith? I heard him speak awhile back at a local Episcopal church. He brings such a powerful message relating to our union with Christ.

I think we can not even live the Christian life in our own strength. But, it’s all by virtue of our union with Him. It’s Jesus who is living His life in us and through us. There’s a real sense that we are sharing in His death and resurrection. We so much need to trust Him, and relax into the reality of our union that we have with Him.

Jackie,

I’m also grieved by some of these things that are being expressed by some in our mainline churches. Our church membership has been declining for at least the last forty years.  There is no doubt that we have problems. I have read some of the books written by church leaders such as Bishop Spong and Marcus Borg. Jackie, as far as I’m concerned, I don’t feel that either of these men are actually Christian believers. Please believe me I’m not saying this in any kind of mean-spirited or disrespectful way, and I know that ultimately only the Lord knows our hearts. And, we need to be in prayer about this whole situation, and for everyone.

But, God calls us to exercise spiritual discernment and contend for the faith.  Jackie, I hope and pray that you do not think that everyone in the church advocating for GLBT inclusion shares these kind of theologies. I certainly do not. And, even among progressives that I know, I feel few would agree with Spong.

My thinking is that we will never have a perfect church. Jesus teaches us that tares will always be mixed with the wheat. I feel that people can stay in the church, and still lovingly speak against abuse and error.

Also, again, I just feel so strongly that our unity is in Christ, not in total agreement concerning the sexuality issue, or for that matter around issues such as divorce and remarriage, or the role and ordination of women.

I believe we should allow freedom of conscience in these matters, and continue to share together.
Also,I’m not feeling this all has the same gravity as say a denial of the divinity of Jesus, or the resurrection which are central to the Christian faith.

Terebinth,

I’m feeling fine, but are you ok? What is wrong, Terebinth?

My dear Grace17033,

I have not heard Fr. Malcolm. I imagine I would like him. No doubt he speaks of grace, of mercy; and the grace and mercy we need to extend to ourselves as we live this Christian life.

This is an aside, but I have really struggled with this (your?) idea that Jesus lives his life through me (I am not suggesting that Fr. Malcolm promotes this). I don’t believe that anymore. I used to—passionately. But when I bumped into folks who claimed that Christ was living through them, I suddenly saw it as all quite dangerous. I’ve come to believe the idea is nearly blasphemous. St. Paul tells us that Christ is at work in us so that WE will ACT and CHOOSE according to God’s purpose. He did not say that Christ is at work in Christ so that Christ will act and choose according to His purpose. St. Paul also says, on the other hand, that he no longer lives, it is Christ who lives in him. But if St. Paul really meant that, would he not have said “That other guy no longer lives; Christ is now alive in Christ?” Surely he would not have continued to say “I no longer live ... Christ lives in me” if he (Paul) no longer lived.

I hope you see the point, which is an important one: Christ hasn’t called us to go about channeling Christ: He has called us to be our fully saved, redeemed selves, the selves He gave us, selves choosing and acting in accordance with His purpose. He has called us to be like Him; He has not asked us to BE Him. Sadly, there are all these lesser Christs running around doing good deeds, creating new loves, offering grace where law is best prescribed and enforcing rules where grace should abound.

If we merely look at Jesus’ “sheep and goats” parable we find something wonderful, and explicit. Jesus doesn’t identify with the doers; He does not say that when you “do unto the least of these you are acting like Me.” He says that when YOU (not Him) do unto the least of these YOU do these kindnesses unto Him. Jesus does not take credit for the good choices of service and obedience; He takes pleasure in seeing us treat the needy as they are, broken as He is broken.

Sadly, and I believe this is on point, the neognosticism invading the Church is all about adoring people who appear to be “more Christ-like,” more “in touch with the divine” or “more spiritual” or “more obedient” or “empty of themselves.” This leads to all sorts of new proclamations, insights and teachings (and a great deal of pride). All of this is based on the gnostic teaching that we are ourselves filled with Christ (people who can do nothing on our own power). It also leads to misinterpreting a healthy norm. Some charismatics don’t believe church is meaningful unless they have an experience, usually an emotional one. Their heightened feelings become a standard; they abhor the healthy norm of moderation, seeing it as dull or even dead. Progressives, in a similar way, come to church bored by the norm and, instead of high feelings, desire God’s presence manifested in some sort of new direction in policy or some progress in society. The healthy norm for progressives is loathsome; they demand a new vision, a new crusade. They are charismatics with a different need: God can only be present when the norm progresses.

We can do much on our own. God wants it that way. He is like any good father: he doesn’t tie his daughter’s shoes so that he can always tie her shoes; he ties her shoes so that the daughter will tie them herself. God does not want to GIVE us holiness (He might have to), He wants us to be holy; to be perfect. He does not say “Well done, my faithful servant” to those He did everything for. It would be like saying to each of us when we get to heaven, “I only see Christ.” What sort of God is that, and what sort of reward is that, with God honoring God and seeing Christ and nothing else?

What I am getting at is that this is all related. Pro-gay activists believe that if they are faithful, open, loving, prayerful; serving and radically hospitable, feeding the poor; and that they can do NONE of this without God’s Spirit and grace, then they MUST be on God’s side; their fruits prove that He is Himself pro-gay. The problem is this all becomes rather subjective; there is nothing by which to judge what is true. That is why so many folks at Stand Firm (and elsewhere) zealously guard the Scriptures, for in them they see not only the words of eternal life, but some sort of rule by which subjective impulses, visions and preferences are measured.

I have not ventured off the path here. I am again defending the thesis that TEC is flirting with the heretical and the heretical is born of subjectivism.

Peace to you, dear Grace17033.

BG

PS. If you are interested in reading more of my thoughts about this subjectivist trend, this series and attendant comment threads might help.

Grace,
I really don’t know what else to say to you.  I am assuming you know that the leadership of ECUSA has not denounced the teachings of JOhn Spong who still wears a collar and promotes himself as a Bishop of the Episcopal Church.  I am sure you already know that scores and scores of churches are inviting Spong and Borg to talk to their congregations - alas - their dance cards are filled to the brim with opportunities to further deteroriate the morals of the laity and clergy of the Episcopal Church.  I am sure you know that the presiding bishop elect had John Spong as the speaker at her clergy conference in Nevada.  And not once have I heard any of the leadership cry out against their apostate and heretical teachings.  No, not once.

From your comments, we can see that you read your bible and understand Scripture.  Your gentle writings make it clear that your heart’s desire is to be a disciple for Christ.  Could you then show us how you pick and choose which Scripture is okay for learning and which ones we need to disregard?  Do you have a formula you use?  Why should Gillian be concerned with divorce issues or for that matter being unequally yoked?  Those verses about turning the other cheek and loving surely don’t apply to her!  What about her right to revenge?  Why should I worry about putting a stumbling block in front of my sister?  I don’t think I like that verse as it interferes with my freedom of speech and afterall it is just about our freedoms, correct?  I’m sure none of these things really matter and we shouldn’t get upset that clergy are allowed to preach that Jesus is not REALLY the son of God (I’m mean really, that stretches the imagination, don’t you think), and why do you have to have an ACTUAL virgin in there - AS IF, and you don’t REALLY think Jesus ACTUALLY ascended do you? After all, didn’t some clergy tell us that Jesus would only be around Pluto by now and science (the real god of ECUSA) has told us THAT is not even a Planet.  Gee.  This all makes perfect sense now - let’s go see what the Unitarians are doing this afternoon or better yet - those LDS people.  They seem to always be doing those good works.  After all, it probably won’t be long before ECUSA will be in communion with them!  Naw, who needs a belief system.  You are probably right.  We just need to concentrate on loving the way the world loves.

Grace continues to make the assumption that this is all about “sex”. As Jackie said above, the mere existance of +Spong in the Episcopal Church is and and should be an affront to every Christian. The fact that there are parishes all over TEC/ECUSA that violate almost every accepted standard of Christianity should be an affront to every Christian. The fact that TEC/ECUSA has allowed pagan rituals on its website should be an affront to every Christian. The fact that TEC/ECUSA puts more faith in its own canons than it does in the Bible and the faith once delivered should be an affront to every Christian. And on and on and on and on….......

My question for Grace is: Where do you draw the line? If we don’t draw it at the gay issue, where do we draw it? The revisionistas have already demonstated that they will stop at nothing short of the complete transformation of TEC/ECUSA into some kind of politically correct Unitarian sect (with smells and bells). So tell me, please, where does this stop?

the snarkster

Guys,

I’ll do my best to share with you more deeply. I am grieved, Sarah, that some in the church would advocate for group sex. I can assure you that I would have nothing to do with such a conference. But, in all fairness, I think you would find an extremely small number of people in the church who would affirm such a thing. I certainly don’t even consider the Unitarian church to even be a Christian denomination.

It’s so important not to tar everyone with the same brush, here. I’m sure you agree that you would not want to link all reasserters with the opinions or ministry of Fred Phelps. (Can you see what I’m saying?)

I think Jesus affirms monogamy, and I certainly cannot see any real justification for advocating for polyamory. I’m willing to bet they were plenty of people at this conference who did not even agree with this speaker. Although, I personally would not have attended at all. God have mercy!!

Jackie and Snarkster(I love that screename.)

I’m an orthodox, evangelical Christian. I have a very high view concerning the inspiration and authority of the word of God. My whole issue with this is in the interpretation and meaning of the Scripture, not with it’s authority for the church.  I know that I’m not able to convince you of my heart in this. But, maybe this will help. Go to “Evangelicals Concerned” and look on their website under “clobber passages.” You will see how some Christians may interpret the Scripture differently in this area relating to sexual orientation.

Of course, I understand that not everyone will agree just as all in the church do not agree in what the Scripture is saying relating to the ordination or role of women, for example.

Snarkster, I cannot speak for some of these other situations in your church. (Actually I’m a member of the ELCA.) But, as I say, there is a huge difference between those who simply reject Biblical authority, who don’t actually care what the Scripture teaches, and sincere Christian believers who are seeking to “rightly divide the word of truth.” God knows our heart. Please don’t put everyone in the same catagory. (There is a huge diversity even among progressives.)

One place I certainly draw the line is at the gospel. Folks who deny the concept of God as trinity, the divinity of Jesus, the atonement of the Lord, or the resurrection are not Christians whether there are in the institutional church or not. We need to love them , and pray for conversion.

Something is spiritually wrong in someone’s life if they are involved with pagan rituals, and cannot discern the difference.

As I’ve shared, I think in the visible church there will always be tares mixed with the wheat. Jesus cautions about agressively pulling up the tares least we destroy the wheat also. We need to be engaging people in discussion, lovingly sharing with them, and praying that God will grant repentant faith.

Also, above all we need to focus on our own faithfulness, and what God is calling us to do. None of us has it all together that’s for sure. We all need His grace!!

But, for myself, I don’t feel led to walk way from my church because there are problems. I want to stay, and share, and contend for the faith once delivered.

And, I can honestly say that I would not seperate from a brother or sister in Christ because of this difference relating to homosexuality. I would agree to disagree, and continue the prayer and discussion. It is the prayer of our Lord that we be one in Him.

Guys, I need to go. But, I have appreciated talking with you. I will certainly keep everything you’ve shared in prayer. And, as they say on the O’Reilly Factor, I will give you all the last word.

Actually, Grace, I think I’ll give you the last word. We need to move on from this thread (I think 318 comments is plenty) 

Comments are closed on this one, folks - let’s move on to Matt’s other posts in this series.