“You are my beloved, In you I am well pleased.”

This extends the theme we heard from the GBLT crowd yesterday: Fallen humans assuming that what God says about Jesus must necessarily apply to them as well. This is more than stunning, Matt - it’s disturbing evidence of a sociopathic disorder, and I’m not trying to be funny.

VGR: the resolution simply reaffirms the HOB expression of regret for the pain and discomfort that has been experienced in Communion. We can only regret what we did if we were sorry that we did it. We are not. We are sorry that it has caused pain. I don’t see support for anything further than that in the HOB

OK, now this is stunning, in light of what Wright just released overt at T1:9.

They’re walking apart, folks. That’s it. Game over. Can anyone - forget about the American orthodox for a minute - but can anyone anywhere in the communion - from Canterbury to Lagos, accept any “expression of regret” as meaning even vaguely what Windsor says it must mean?

Unbelievable.

Susan Russel says that the idea that we are in impaired communion is ludicrous because of Vickie Gene.

Vickie Gene says that it has become an issue beyond what anyone of them thought or imagined.  He says something akin to that about three times.

Who is telling the truth here?

They are still not offering up how they can reconcile their belief with Scripture.  Certainly God loves all of His creation.  No one argues that.  But as humans we have been given the opportunity to choose.  This sets us apart from the rest of creation and gives a responsibility to, when we choose to follow Jesus, we must follow according to the guidelines set in Scripture, not our own will.  VGR & Russell are choosing to follow their own will, places themselves above God by calling what God calls sin as love.  All because they somehow know better than all those that went before them.

This is obscene.

VGR doesn’t think that ECUSA should be repremanded because the Communion has never repremanded any of the other Provinces before.

Is that his logic?

I refer him to a phrase I learned a long time ago.  “There is a first time for everything!”

Although this is obscene, it is also honest and clear. I am delighted that clarity is finally breaking through the choking fog of spin that has enveloped this dispute. Bottom line: the whole Communion must affirm the sin as well as the sinner. If they won’t, we (ECUSA [er, sorry, TEC]) will proceed anyway.

Put that in your “interdependence” pipe and smoke it.

Warning to conservatives: VGR and Susan Russell are “prophetic” liberals. “Institutional” liberals will not be as eager as they are to defy the torpoedoes and order full speed ahead. The real dispute at GC is between the “institutional” left and the “prophetic” left.

As inflammatory as the above rhetoric sounds, I think Publius is right about where the lines are drawn.  And Greg was right that the final result of this gathering will be as maximally ambiguous (or “in tension") as the smartest revisionists can manage it.

Keep in mind that Integrity is a lobby group, not the leadership. They have a lot of influence, but they don’t make policy. These comments by VR and Susan are obscene but not at all unexpected. They have been saying this stuff for years. To say “game over” based on this press conference may be a bit premature. And don’t we all feel bad for VR that the world forced him to be “the gay bishop”.

“Jesus is the homosexual agenda in ECUSA. I believe that with my whole heart.” Any guesses what this means?

VGR and Russell are the king and queen, bishop and priestess, of the HRC church homecoming offensive.

HRC to churches:  “we are here to educate.”

ECUSA is their bulwark in religion “reeducation camps.”

By “above rhetoric” I meant HRC, VGR, SR, etc., of course, not Publius!

What do unity and communion mean when VGR and Susan and Integrity and others use them? One dictionary I have says unity is “an unreduced or unbroken completeness or totality” and defines communion as “a group of Christians with a common religious faith who practice the same rites”. Orthodox Christians share no “common religious faith” with the Bishop of NH and his allies and ECUSA (pardon me, TEC) is anything but an unreduced and unbroken completeness. So unity and communion obviously mean whatever VGR thinks it means. And he believes that the rest of the Communion will see things his way. We will see more and more instances of the violation of the clear meaning of words in the next few days. What is terribly saddening is that the violaters truly believe that everyone should agree with them.

VGR: “I think we want to listen to what is being said by our partners in mission around the world. At the same time we cannot be dictated to.”

OK.  The GLBT lobby was told no in 1979, again several more times in the ‘80s and ‘90s, and yet again by our own HoB in March 2003.  Yet of course the church is accused of “not listening.”

Further, the whole idea that in doctrinal matters the Church should “listen to its members” is rather silly to start with; the Truth is not subject to majority vote—or at least, not since the days of the Undivided Church.

This is doublethink of the very highest order ( http://www.2006gc.blogspot.com/ ); Susan and Gene should be awarded some sort of prize.

This is not obscene.  It is true, heartfelt belief, even if I, as Orthodox reject it.

Pardon me, but isn’t the acronym already used by a continuing group already?  TEC Traditional Episcopal Church ... Anyone else able to clarify?

When VGR uses the word god, it really should be spelled with a small “g”.

My favorite part was Gene’s comments about not wanting to be the “gay bishop” and how the world wouldn’t let him be just a bishop.  Sounds like Michael in Godfather II. 

But, uh, didn’t he then proceed to say how he had to be the world-traveling gay bishop because only he could speak to this issue from experience? Maybe Matt left out the explanation in his haste...or shock.  Keep up the great work, Matt.

Pardon me, but isn’t the acronym already used by a continuing group already?  TEC Traditional Episcopal Church ... Anyone else able to clarify?

Yes, Fr. K., this is true, but you know liberals.  Always taking things and then changing them.  Soon (maybe later this week) TEC will stand for The Episcopal Communion.

Tom, are the two incompatable? Can what they say be “heartfelt belief” for them, and obscene to those who find their beliefs heresy? I acknoweldge their sincerity but also find the content of their belief, and the manipultive way they use language and give new meanings to words offensive and yes, even obscene.

Whenever VGR speaks I feel so sad, mostly for him.  So much human pride, “I’m so proud, I’m so proud"-- absolutely no sign of the humility that leads us to understanding our need to submit to what God wants for our lives instead of what we want.

This is a secular group with a secular agenda who finally gained control of The Episcopal Church in 2003.  Will they retain it in 2006?  I don’t think we know that for sure quite yet.

Pam:

I would maintain that obscenity implies the desire of the speaker to say something obscene.  Knowing a bit about VGR’s background and some of the personal sacrifice he has had to endure getting to this point, he doesn’t consider what he is saying obscene.

I have known many gays, some of whom remain great personal friends.  To the man, they maintain that their gayness is the way God made them.  It really boils down to the nature of homosexuality, did God make them that way, or not?  I happen to believe that there may be a predisposition to be that way, but like other “ism” disorders, such as alcoholism, one has a choice in the matter.  In my orthodox way of believing, we are invitied to move towards God and away from sinful behavior, and this kind of behavior qualifies.

However, if one believes that he or she was made this way by God, with no choice in the matter, then to reject their behavior is to reject them, as if one were rejecting another person for his or her race or gender.  Thus, nothing they say seems to them obscene.

You probably know this.  But I believe we lose sight of it when we act aghast at what they say.  What were you expecting?  To repent would be to deny their personhood, and to forget about all the persecution they have had to endure for being gay.

I am not sure we see that what our gay brothers and sisters need is healing of their own images and their images of God.  But GC ain’t the place for this.

Well, that seems clear enough. I hope VGR and his Integripalians can maintain that clarity until its time to vote. We need a final, clear, and unambiguous end to this mess NOW. GC06 needs to make a decision: yes/no, up/down, black/white, or whatever. I would like to get back to my life, in or out of ECUSA.

the snarkster

Tom, I agree with the spirit of what you have written above. However…

A statement, action, or representation can be obscene regardless of the intent of the originator. Sincerity doesn’t negate the inherent morality or immorality of a thing.

Also, you wrote: “To repent would be to deny their personhood...”

I think you have probably explained their perspective quite well in that line. One thing needs to be emphasised, though. Their personhood is not ultimately defined by their sexual preferences. Sexual proclivities are *a part* of who we are-- but they are not WHO we are. We are people made in the image of God who also bear wounds from the Fall. Each of us is wounded in a different way and all of us need healing.

GC is, for the orthodox, about (in part) ensuring that ECUSA remains a place where this healing is mediated. To do this it is necessary to confront the “theology” behind the LGBT agenda and make sure it doesn’t replace the gospel with a cheap but pleasing substitute. As you point out, GC will not likely be a place of healing so much as a place that will might allow healing to occur.

P.S. I’m not disagreeing with you on every point. Just processing “out loud”.

One more P.S.

I wrote: “We are people made in the image of God who also bear wounds from the Fall” and “Each of us is wounded in a different way and all of us need healing.”

By this I meant that the image of God is something inherent to our humanity. In all of us, however, that image is warped by original sin and by the ravages of our own sin. Homosexuality is a part of that warp in the same way that all sin (or desire for sin) is-- including ours (those who don’t struggle in this *particular* way).

At this point LGBT activists might be inclined to say “who are you to cast the first stone, then?” But that would be to miss the point. All of us have sinned-- but not all of us are trying to redefine our sins as being holy.

Challenges for us all, I suppose. Grace and truthfulness.

The resolutions will sound good, and moderate Bishops and Priests who can fathom the thought of leaving ECUSA will say, with support from Eames and others, that this is sufficient to stay at the table.  At the same time, Russell and others will say what they said today. NOTHING will change in practice at ECUSA.

should be “can’t fathom...”

Exactly.

I’ve waited over 20 years for ECUSA to change directions.  It hasn’t happened and IMHO I don’t think anything with change with this convention.  ECUSA will find a way to stay at the table and drag things out.  Next stopping point will be Lambeth 2008.

fs:

Not to beat it to death, but we have obscenity laws because society has had a common opinion about what is obscene. Not so in this case. I agree that the bending of language is, to me, obscene.  There, I’ve said it!

Nobody has struggled with this more viscerally than have I.  It is because I have seen the gay lifestyle up close and personal, not by any means as a participant, but because I have happened to have friends who were and are gay.  Thus, by knowing people who are gay I have discerned, in a small way, what they think about things.  Because, for many of them, coming to terms with their gayness has been so painful, and in some cases, so public, they tend to wear it like a badge.

I decided to leave PECUSA after 2003, with my wife and two young boys, then I came back.  Why?  It was the hymns.  It was the stained glass.  It was the twelve minute sermons.  But it sure as hell wasn’t the theology.  I just missed it, because I have been used to it for 49 years!

In a sense, and I’ll get flack for this, the matter about sexuality is much more personal than theological. VGR sure ain’t the first gay bishop, it is just that he decided to tell everybody, and now we’re lathered about it.  And I’m sure there are many entirely orthodox who have had the urge to put their weewee’s where they shouldn’t.  The bottom line is, this is private stuff, and as a society, we have lost the sense of what is private and what is public.

Jesus didn’t talk about homosexuality, per se, because he had better sense than to bring up the subject.

We need some real men, some Marlboro men, to show these folks how an entirely masculine guy can cry over the father wounds of these poor folks, and even though GC isn’t the place for it to happen, it may be the place to suggest it.  I weep for VGR.  And because I care for him, poor alcoholic that he is, I find it hard to really fight him, except to reiterate the gospel truths I know, the same ones he reiterates back to me.  This is a tough one.

The problem is, while with every part of my being I resist what the liberals believe, I have fallen in love with them as people.

We orthodox think we have options if this deal doesn’t work out.  We’ll just form an Anglican church under the Bishop of Wherever.  Or head over to the nearest Catholic, Baptist, or Bible believing church.  I’ve checked it out.  You’re not going to be happy with it.

The thing that I admire about the liberals, revisionist, LGBT, or whatever, is that they know this is their only church, it is their last stop.  Perhaps I need to start fighting for the orthodoxy of it as though I felt it were MY only option.  Don’t know about the rest of you, but I have done my share of sulking, and I repent.  I’m through.

VGR: “We want to say this God saved me from what the church told me about myself.”

Hmmm - And all this time I thought that Jesus died on the cross to save me from my own sins.

Tom,

I refer you to an earlier writing of Matt Kennedy’s: http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/jesus_never_said_that/ .

It is that nothing else need be said of it and I would be afraid to say that Jesus avoided a topic for fear of the controversy it would create.

Since I first used the term obscene...I did not mean it in a sexual sense.  I meant it to say that the comments in the press conference were so outrageous that it seemed that only to say that they were outrageous would not match how extreme the outrageous comments were/are. 

In particular, “Jesus is the homosexual agenda of ECUSA.” In the context of their actions, they are trying to equate their agenda with Jesus’s agenda.  This is an extremely horrific statement because their agenda is, almost in its entirety, repugnant to Scripture.  So much so that it is obscene.

But we ain’t talking about “porneia”.  That is lasciviousness, and these folks don’t think they’re being lascivious!  Believe me, it’s a tar baby.  Only Jesus can fix this one, and has, so it is entering the belly of beast that we take his redemptive love in with us.

Well said, Tom.

Your post raised a couple of points that I would like to respond to. I can only share my own views-- but I think those views will be representative of those held by most of the orthodox.

Firstly, with regard to the concecration of VGR for me it is not personal-- it is “theological”. It won’t feel that way for VGR, and I am sorry for that, but it is true nonetheless. When ECUSA concecrated VGR they, knowingly, sent a message out to the world which said “we affirm this lifestyle as being one which is holy and pleasing to God”. *That* is what got people in a lather. ECUSA began to teach, in technocolor, something that was contrary to the deposit of the faith.

This does not mean that I believe it would have been ok if VGR had just remained silent-- while I take your point about privacy, there is also a need for integrity (as in the virtue, not the organisation). At least VGR isn’t living a lie. The bishops (and priests) of the Church are called to lead holy and exemplary lives. We should no more wink at what we know is going on private here than we would if we knew our bishop was visiting prostitutes or using cocaine.

You said, “Jesus didn’t bring up homosexuality, per se, because he had better sense than to bring up the subject.”

Not quite sure how to respond to that!

Err, “well said” refers to your earlier post to me.

In re: porneia (and the definition of “obscene” for that matter) I believe you are placing too much emphasis on the subjective values of the individual. If God classifies certain acts as being a certain category of sin, it is his estimation of those acts that matters, not the individual’s estimation (or re-estimation in many cases). More simply put, if God says something is evil and someone says that it isn’t evil to them… I’d bank on God’s definition.

Sociopath - now known as anti-social personality disorder. The disorder is manifested by a pattern of irresponsible and antisocial behavior as indicated by academic failure, poor job performance, illegal activities, recklessness, and impulsive behavior. Symptoms may include dysphoria, an inability to tolerate boredom, feeling victimized, and a diminished capacity for intimacy.

Psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defence mechanism in which one attributes ("projects") to others, one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions. Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted subconscious impulses/desires without letting the ego recognize them.

fs:

Love it!  You’re right about the church affirming the lifestyle. 

The hard part for me, is it because VGR lives with another man, and, if pressed, would admit that he has.....anal sex with him, is that what makes him gay?  By the way, the thought of it sickens me, but that is what it gets down to.

Two questions.  Have we actually witnessed “the deed” taking place between the two of them?  And if VGR had divorced Mrs. VGR and was just living with a “buddy”, would that make him more qualified to be bishop?

I know these seem like silly questions.  You see, without having a video camera in somebody’s bedroom, how do we prove gayness?

That is why I keep thinking that this is a private matter that we have made public.  When Jesus talks about “porneia”, which I mistakenly thought referred to lewd behaviour but upon closer reading found it referred to the behaviour, whether lewd or not, of putting phalli and the like in orifices where they shouldn’t be, I think he is really getting at the condition of heart which leads one to do such things.  Having been around some gays in my day, and a few alcoholics, I can tell you that Jesus could talk until blue in the face about what not to do, and they, by God, will run out and do it just to point their middle finger at him!

So it is a condition of the heart.  By the way, how many of these guys do you know that really lead “holy and exemplary lives”?  Even Paul admitted that he was chief among sinners.  Not to say that that shouldn’t be the goal, it should, but it is a process that in my experience, only God, through his Holy Spirit can work into me.

So the question, is VGR listening to the same Holy Spirit that I am?

lignum vitae
n 1: hard greenish-brown wood of the lignum vitae tree and other
trees of the genus Guaiacum [syn: guaiac, guaiacum]
2: small evergreen tree of Caribbean and southern Central
America to northern South America; a source of lignum
vitae wood, hardest of commercial timbers, and a medicinal
resin [syn: Guaiacum officinale]

Terebinth, Farstrider?

Hi Tom,

I don’t think we should be trying to “prove people’s gayness"-- we just need to be transparently clear as to what it means to follow Christ, and make it clear that those who would shepherd God’s people are particularly accountable for the examples they set. Following Christ is about the heart, as you point out, but where the heart goes deeds will follow.

Yep, Terebinth. 

Whoops, sorry-- misunderstood and referenced the wrong person. Not Trebinth. Heidi kindly posted some definitions for us to consider, I thought I would also contribute something of interest. Next time someone asks you what a sociopath is, what psychological projection is, or what lignum vitae is, you can give them one of these answers.

Just got done listening to audio of the Integrity, et. al. press conference.  In answer to my last question about VGR and me, that would be “No”.  And Susan Russell.....I love how she uses theological language like “the spirit”.  What these people are about is not at all about sexual practices, it is about a naked grab for power.  Not being there, I had to hear it. 

VGR talks about his experiences with LGBT and “questioning” youth, and their sense of guilt.  It is not always implanted in them by the church, as he suggests.

I’d also add that I’ve never heard any orthodox believer, Anglican, Baptist, Brethren, or Catholic, refer to homosexuals as “abominations”. The act is called an abomination in Scipture-- not the person.

The stridency, the anger in her voice.  God, VGR is a wuss compared to her.

I can’t help but think of Jude 16 in the NRSV after reading Russell’s comments,’bombastic in speech’,while at the very same time,’flattering people to their own advantage’.

“They said I am an abomination. “

No one has said this (at least no Christian.  What has been said is that his behaviour is sinful and to deny that impairs his relationship with God.  We are ALL sinners and we all know this too well in our own lives.

Furthermore, living here in New Hampshire, I wouldn’t say that VGR’s diocese is exactly thriving.

As a convinced liberal and reappraiser, I am delighted to see that some are standing firm. It will be better for us all if there is a split. As someone who used to attend the CofE in England, but will no longer whilst remaining part of a conservative dominated communion, I view this as the beginning of something new and exciting.

Are you with the Unitarians now Mike?

Sorry,

That question was both pointless and uncalled for.

“conservative dominated communion”

No, Farstrider - I have returned to the Quakers, from where I came before becoming an Anglican.

I may well stay there - but what would be the problem with the Unitarians? I am much closer to their outlook than I am yours!

Hi Merseymike-- thanks for your answer. You really didn’t need to.

As for the similarity in outlooks… I agree, which is, I suppose, why I asked. You will appreciate that many orthodox see many of the revisionist theologies as being inherently non-Christian. I’m not just refering to the sexuality issue-- that’s really just the fruit of something that goes much deeper. I am refering to things that are said about the Trinitarian nature of God, of the person of the Son and the Spirit, of salvation, of Scripture and so on.

I would rather that those standing on the edge came in and found grace in the knowledge of the God who reveals Himself in Scripture… but if they refuse to recognise this revelation, if their theology is actually Unitarian (or in some cases even Wiccan, it seems) I wonder why they stay.

THANK YOU Farstrider!  You have articulated what I would say, SO much better than I could.  All of your comments allowed me to breathe again, after reading the words of Suan Russell and VGR

“When VGR uses the word god, it really should be spelled with a small “g”.”

By whose authority do you get to make that statement?  By what Divine right do you get to say who can and cannot say God’s name?  Last time I checked my Bible, there wasn’t a copyright on the Lord’s Name!
Why would one even say such a thing?!  It’s ludicrous to even think that we can say who is “right” and “holy” to call upon God!  No one, except Christ, is perfect.  No one is better than the other.  ‘For a master is not above his slave, nor a slave above his master.’

“Certainly God loves all of His creation.  No one argues that.  But as humans we have been given the opportunity to choose.”
Right, we have been given the opportunity to choose.  And sadly, as history has shown, the opportunity to hate, fear, oppress, murder, exclude….  Why is it that when it comes to unity, togetherness, hope, love, and forgiveness are always seen as the “weak” way out?  We are called to follow Jesus, to take up our Cross.  Sadly no one is ready to die for everyone’s sin, as Jesus did.  Sadly no one is forgiving, as Jesus did.  Sadly no one is calling out to the weak and sick and poor, as Jesus did.  When will humanity stop talking the talk and start walking the walk?

“…when we choose to follow Jesus, we must follow according to the guidelines set in Scripture, not our own will.”
Really….guidelines in Scripture?  Jesus said it would be better for one to cut off their sinful hand or eye than to enter Heaven with it.  And on Sunday I didn’t see anyone doing any chopping.  Better yet, how about Jesus guidelines about divorce.  Anyone who divorces their partner, unless acts of adultery were committed, they are the adulteress.  I haven’t seen nor heard the Church come down on that one.  I haven’t seen picketing of court houses for people getting divorce; you know breaking what God has joined?
Who says that we aren’t following Jesus?  I’m following Jesus according to scripture, to love thy neighbor as thyself and to love thy God with all thy heart, body, soul, and mind.  And to not judge, which is the biggest temptation of all.
Also, which Jesus, Catholics? Us Anglicans?  Perhaps the Baptists?  Maybe it’s the Mormons who are following the “guidelines in scripture.”

“VGR & Russell are choosing to follow their own will, places themselves above God by calling what God calls sin as love.  All because they somehow know better than all those that went before them. “
Really?  They are following their own will when they are trying to call people to Jesus.  To let people accept Jesus?  They are following” their own will” when all they want is include those who have been cast out?  Wow, they really are self’ish…I mean thinking that different people, of race, sex, orientation, creed can come together and worship God, what were they thinking?!

You may read that into their comments Thadeus,but it’s not the same Jesus.If it were,they’d follow the teaching Paul gives in Ephesians 4:17-24,especially 20-24:’That is not how you learned Christ!For surely as you have heard about Him and were taught in Him,as truth is in Jesus.You were taught to put away your former way of life,your old self,corrupt and deluded by its lusts,and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds,and to clothe yourselves with the new self,created according to the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness..’NRSV
The only thing I read in their comments was hubris,not only in the story cited by Father Matt here but all along.
In case someone’s unclear about the meaning and action of hubris,especially in the face of Dromantine and Windsor,here’s a bit of insight:’Ernest Myers speaks of the sin of hubris,of insolence,ready to trample in violence over law and liberty to gratify selfish lust and pride.’Barclay’s NT Words 126
Regarding your last paragraph,’Piety which serves as a mask for a shameful life is hateful to Him.A long and violent indictment puts these things in their right perspective;God demands righteousness and truth,He condemns a worship which is sacrilegious because it is false.’R.Martin-Achard

I think the thing that really disturbs me here is the listening part. In this interview, Mr. Robinson stated that he wanted to be listened to, but “will not be dictated to.”

Here’s my problem with this: to truly listen, one has to leave the possibility that the other could convince you of their point of view. Listening does not mean smiling and nodding while simply awaiting the other to stop speaking so you can continue on your way.

I don’t really care what someone’s orientation or preference is. I don’t have a problem with their orientation or preference. I would just as soon not know what it is. However, I draw the line at taking what a plain reading of Scripture refers to as sinful and calling it blessed.

If someone who identifies as homosexual wants to be a priest or bishop, I have no problem with that - as long as they are celibate. For the matter of that, the same thing applies to those identifying as heterosexual. We all have inclinations to sin - it’s acting on them that is sinful.

I was in the discernment process in a conservative diocese when a promotion took me far away to a liberal one. I had given up all hope of ordained ministry after GC2003, until the fire was rekindled during a visit last year to England. Worshipping at St. Paul’s Cathedral and Westminster Abbey reminded me that the AC was more than just our little corner of ECUSA.

My prayer is now to find a way to pursue ordained ministry despite my location. My prayers are for the Church at large, and especially for Fr. Matt and those bringing this information to us isolated reasserters in the field. Blessings on you all - you are in my prayers.