Be loving in everything you do." - I Corinthians 16:13-14
|
"Be on your guard. Stand firm in the faith. Be brave. Be strong. Be loving in everything you do." - I Corinthians 16:13-14 |
Fox News is reporting:
The measure would have affirmed the church ban on ordaining sexually active gays and lesbians, but would have allowed bishops and church districts called synods to seek an exception for a particular candidate — if that person was in a committed relationship and met other restrictions.
Greg - I hope everyone sees this as a rally cry! If anyone wondered (as I do daily) why we are fighting this fight - this brings it home! This vote can easily be compared to ECUSA GC2000. If the Orthodox in ECUSA had not stood in the breach, the Lutherans right now would be where we were after GC03.
Add this to your last post on Western Europe - well as a good friend said to me recently, the road ahead is going to get rougher for the Orthodox.
# Posted by: Jackie at August 12, 2005 06:37 PMDoesn't matter. The ELCA already has some non-celibate gay ministers (at least a few of them have been at the CWA this week), indicating that there are bishops who are willing to look the other way. It's true that they have no constitutional authority to do what they're doing, but they'll learn in very short order from their full communion partners in the ECUSA how to creatively "interpret" the regs. It is precisely the very sharp division within the ELCA that will make this possible. And the continued disintegration of mainline Protestantism will go on apace.
# Posted by: David Fischler at August 12, 2005 08:59 PMJackie - unfortunately, I don't see it as an encouraging long-term sign. Stepping back from the brink is always better than plunging over it, but this is a short-term victory for the Lutherans. The fact that they insist on flirting with it so closely and so often is a sign of the same kind of sickness that grips our church. Institutions in general tend to become more liberal the longer they're around; thus I think conservative Lutherans need to come to terms with the high probability that they have succeeded only in delaying the inevitable. If they see this as cause for anything more than a brief celebration - a time to catch their breaths before preparing for the next battles - then they're as doomed to schism and chaos as we are.
# Posted by: Greg at August 13, 2005 12:23 AMAll this talk about the Extremely Liberal Church of America is missing the point: ELCA has been apostate for decades.
Lutherans who believe the Scriptures and obey God generally don't belong to the ELCA - they will join with the Missouri Synod Lutherans or other Lutheran churches.
ELCA doesn't believe that the scriptures are without error. It has joined itself unto the Babylonian system (the WCC) and ordains female "priests" .... in other words, the ELCA rejected Bible Christianity years ago.
So what they do or don't do now with regard to ordaining gays or elevating gays to the supposed office of "bishop" is entirely irrelevant.
Puzzling over what the ELCA does is like looking for signs of reform in the Mafia. Just because they don't whack people in public as they used to doesn't mean they aren't an outlaw organization.
The ELCA is an outlaw organization as far as God's Word is concerned.
# Posted by: John Pittman Hey at August 13, 2005 01:59 AMAs a traditionalist Lutheran in the ELCA I'd like to invite Hey outside.
I can inform all of you that just as in the ECUSA there are plenty of faithful pastors who are not ready to turn the church over to revisionists yet.
Here is is the morning after and none of us have hangovers.
It only matters where you stand to chose to fight. Folk who think there is a perfect church somewhere to go to, please tell me again what is the address?
The battle is for the hearts and minds of a generation.The big picture is not that jesus is waiting for a perfect denomination until He comes.
If you want to get technical, it's not ordaining women that's the problem. The fact that a DENOMINATION ordains women is a problem.
I had a history prof tell the class that the German immigrants who eventually founded the Missouri Synod thought that if there ship would have sunk on the way to America there would be not true church left on earth.
So, there's not much use in denouncing the ELCA. I do it myself, but I am in it and so have the right. No one needs to lose any sleep that traditionalists have rose-colored glasses.
The ELCA is probably about a third trad, a third revisionist and the middle just wants to get along and would be really happy if the donuts were jelly filled.
If the third that reads the Bible and believes in eternal things leaves, no one sees a problem there?
# Posted by: Pietist at August 13, 2005 07:39 AMPietist,
I thank God for your call to the multitudes within ELCA who stand in the valley of decision.
That's very good of you to say, but I want everyone hear to know that you, Karen and the pray-ers on the L& B line are loved deeply and much appreciated by Pietist and the other Lutherans (as they get to know you).
Let's keep the main thing the main thing. We cling to Christ by faith, and we do that everyday in prayer.
# Posted by: Eric "the Pietist" Swensson at August 13, 2005 08:16 PMIf I were Satan, I would want to destroy the Army of the Lord. A Civil War general told his troops not to shoot to kill but aim for the legs. Then it would take two troops to care for the injured man rather than one dead and out of service. If I were Satan I would sneak my minions into top layers of leadership of large denominations and churches. I would not completely take over the groups but just enough to tie down the orthodox in trying to undo the damage. As long as they were outnumbered or weak they would not be effective. In business, there is the cost benefit ratio. If I spend $1000 on a widget but make $1500 each year then that is good. Also, there is the principle of lost opportunity cost. If instead of taking the $1000 and investing in widgets I put it in doodads and make $2000 a year then there is an extra $500 cost of lost opportunity in widget investment. The question orthodox believers need to ask prayerfully is if I stay in ten years what will I have accomplished and what other things in the Lord’s service would I have accomplished by going to another place of service. Of course Satan is not as wise as we are.
# Posted by: Prophet Micaiah at August 13, 2005 10:46 PMGiven, short of heaven, a perfect church will not be a reality the pietist makes an undeniable point. The underlying theological issue of salvation and original sin that has been brought to the table by "church leaders" advocating the homosexuality lifestyle is a core issue. I do think we have an obligation ,at a minimum, to pursue what is really at stake in this battle
# Posted by: pep at August 15, 2005 05:10 AMGreg, you said: "Institutions in general tend to become more liberal the longer they're around."
While I certainly agree with you on this point, it surprises me that you would resign yourself to that sort of fatalism--especially given your obvious commitment to reversing and preventing further reform in ECUSA.
I'm not trying to get under your skin or anything, but I would be interested to know how you square that admitted seeming inevitability with your own conscientious persistence. Or in other words, do you have hope for your cause, and if not, what keeps you going? Again, I'm asking this in all humility with no ulterior motives.
Anonymous Coward #73
# Posted by: at August 15, 2005 11:48 AMAC - No need for apologies. i understand exactly what you mean.
This is a thumbnail explanation - I don't have enough time to really go into it all now, but I wanted to give you something rather than nothing.
There is hope - and I admit that it probably falls into the theoretical realm rather than the practical one - that ECUSA will reform itself. It is always of course possible that the left hardliners will wake up to the damage they've done and the precipice on which they stand; there's always the possibility that the unengaged middle will wake up soon enough, and realize that the church of their fathers and grandfathers is casting aside the Bible in favor of a fashionable political agenda; and that one or both of these may cause ECUSA's leadership to reverse course and restore this faith to one that's solidly Christian, as opposed to what it is now, which is vaguely Christian but only if you squint.
Those are remote - very remote - possibilities.
As Sarah explained on a thread long ago in answer to much the same question, part of the reason I stay is the same reason one fights for the life of a terminal child or parent: Not because you think you stand a good chance of winning, but because that's what you do. You don't abandon your child or parent while the monitor's still beeping, while they're still drawing breath. Or in coach-speak, you leave it all on the field. I will not look back on this and regret that I left the field too early, or that I didn't try hard enough. If you play chess, you know that you can find yourself in a position where it's very tempting to just concede, instead of moving your king around the board one square at a time for 38 moves, denying your opponent the pleasure of immediate victory. This can be turned into a stalemate, which is qualitatively different from a loss.
I will leave to my daughter a legacy of Christian faith and worship. I would like to leave her the legacy of an Episcopal Church that has found its way back to Christianity. If I can't do that, I will try and leave her a legacy of faithful Anglicanism. I may very well not be able to do that. What I will leave her, though, is a legacy of strong Christian faith and worship. Until I am convinced that there is absolutely no hope, I will continue to fight for it.
Even after I am convinced there is no hope, I may continue to fight, and in fact that may very well be what I'm doing, without realizing it. Why? Because by continuing to expose the apostasy of the Episcopal Church, and certain theologically liberal factions within Anglicanism, it's possible that I can keep good people from scattering to other denominations, and help ensure that when all of this is settled, these good people and I will still be together.
# Posted by: Greg at August 15, 2005 01:11 PMGreg,
Thank you for your response. My casual perusal of the boards on this site typically brings more vitriol and spite than I care to ingest at one time. Your reply, however, was full of a gentle, eloquent, and unassuming grace that was honest and yet refused to gloss over the pain you feel with unchecked ire. I often feel that in this conflict, people assume that the only way to be honest with one another is by showing everyone just how enraged, intense, or righteous they are instead of being honest to how hurt, scared, and vulnerable they feel.
Just to further clarify what you are saying: When you said, "...it's possible that I can keep good people from scattering to other denominations, and help ensure that when all of this is settled, these good people and I will still be together," did you mean that you would stay within the denomination even if you thought all hope was lost? That were you to become an indisputable minority you would still remain a part of ECUSA in order to be with the folks who are fighting the good fight with you?
Again, this may sound like I'm trying to back you into a corner, but that's not my intent at all. I'm just fascinated because I've never perceived your position to be such at all.
AC
# Posted by: at August 15, 2005 03:10 PMAC3,
Thank you.
To answer your question: "Were you to become an indisputable minority you would still remain a part of ECUSA in order to be with the folks who are fighting the good fight with you?"
I *am* an indisuptable minority, if what you're referring to is someone who used to be asleep, but now is awake, and is begging others to wake up too, see the trouble we're in, and help try and turn this church around.
As far as how long I'll stick around, I can assure you I won't be here forever. In Washington, D.C. in 1982, a plane crashed into the partially-frozen Potomac River. There was a man who survived the crash and was in good enough shape that he was able to help others grab the line that dangled from the rescue helicopter, which towed them to safety. Time and again the helicopter returned, and each time the man was there to guide the line to other people. Then there came a point where he was the only remaining survivor. When the helicopter returned to rescue him, he was gone, along with the tail section of the plane onto which he had been hanging, and which had served as a rescue platform for all the other survivors. You can read about the crash and the man who gave his life to save others here.
In an obviously less dramatic and less heroic way, I'm trying to help people off the plane - not by encouraging them to leave ECUSA - but to help them grab the lifeline of faithful, orthodox Christianity. Sometimes that means leaving ECUSA, sometimes not.
Now imagine that there are people on this crashed plane who don't want to be rescued. My hope is that I will at least get a sense of who they are, soon enough to grab the line myself and be towed to safety. I will not go down with the tail section of this plane, that's for sure, because it's not just me alone risking my (eternal) life - my wife and child are hanging on, too, watching me as I repeatedly pass the line to others, while things get progressively more grim here on the tail section. Already they are both paying a huge price for my involvement in this fight. Nasty words have been directed at her and me, and rumors and spiteful things have been said behind our backs. Other attempts to ostracize us have been made here and there. Not to say that everything is thoroughly unpleasant - there have been surprising sparks of decency and goodness from the unlikeliest people. But overall it's a distressing experience to go to church, and that's not at all what my wife or my child signed up for, and certainly not what they deserve. I expected harsh words, nasty emails, and such, so when I started getting them I wasn't surprised, but what I wasn't prepared for was the spiritual drought it would inflict on my family. It is rewarding to hear from people in person and via email - friends as well as complete strangers - who thank me for helping them see the light and leave, or see the light and stay, or see whatever I've helped them see and find some peace in whatever decision they make; but they're juxtaposed against the slumped shoulders, the heavy sighs, the downcast looks, from my wife when we talk about church-related things that should be at worst emotionally neutral, at best celebrations of our lives together as Christians. Not a day goes by that I don't long for the release of being rid of this.
# Posted by: Greg at August 15, 2005 10:29 PMWhat horrible evil are the ECUSA infidels inflicting on His chosen ones and their families with their determingation to exert their will and not Thy Will be done. Ps. 37,39, 73 and others give the fate of all the players in this tragedy. Sitting by a terminal child, rescueing out of burning buildings, pulling bodies out of a sewer that has once been a great church---enough to break the hardest hart but not the selfish revisionist. God will reward. You have my prayers. I count it a privilege to know any one of you. Maranathe, anathama.
# Posted by: Prophet Micaiah at August 15, 2005 11:52 PMGreg,
I, again, appreciate your response. I can certainly imagine the strain your devotion has put on your family; then again, perhaps we should instead be applauding your wife's devotion to you!
On the other hand, it would seem that the tone of much of the postings on this site absolutely forget that each of us is not the only person in Mississippi who has a family. Every priest, bishop, and layperson maligned on theological, professional, or personal grounds is someone's child, most have spouses, and many have children. As you have pointed out, these back-biting attacks occur on both sides, and I do not wish to defend those that have been directed at you. None of us are blameless. Nonetheless, it should be noted in the midst of our conversation--as you have spoken honestly with me and made yourself vulnerable--that other people of differing opinions who have made themselves vulnerable, tried earnestly to serve their God the best way they know how, and act according to their conscience have been attacked on this site, and these attacks--whether directed at the person or at the opinion--affect not only the individual, but their spouses, friends, and, yes, children.
Perhaps such are the rules of the game, and we all should hunker down and prepare for the worst. Or perhaps the rules should change.
I thank you again for your honesty and vulnerability.
AC
# Posted by: at August 16, 2005 12:55 PMWhen an ordained priest tells his parishioners that if they're going to leave the church, they should seek out a homosexual parishioner and tell them "you're the reason I'm leaving this church" (as the rector of Jackson's largest Episcopal church did last year), he has committed a very serious, reprehensible breach of his duties. When a priest stands on the floor of council and attempts, with sneering contempt, to pull a parliamentary fast one, as happened in January in Natchez, he has revealed a deceitfulness that strips him of any right to be handled with kid gloves - if such a right existed in the first place. Criticizing these public acts by ordained leaders in whom much trust has been placed, is quite different from sniping at someone behind their back. Too many priests want to have it both ways: They want the power of their pulpit, they want the public accolades that go with being a priest, but they're appalled when any lay person has the gall to question or criticize what they say or do. Do it in a way that stings, and they come unglued.
I'm not saying I don't deserve criticism, or even insults. I've been intemperate with plenty of my remarks, and I've deserved the occasional verbal thrashing I've gotten. But for every remark that crossed the line and deserved rebuking, there are plenty which caused certain people to shriek for no other reason than the truth hurts. There are perhaps three or four instances where I've said something that truly deserved an apology; but there must be forty or fifty instances where the offended party was offended not by the substance of the remark, but the fact that I had the gall to make it in the first place. Of the many deficiencies of the clergy as a class, this is one of the most distressing, and one that gets very little exposure. I'd bet, though, that almost every person reading this can give at least one example of a time when their questions or criticisms of a priest's theology or behavior has been met with contemptuous dismissal or outright belligerence. As a class, they are one the most professionally thin-skinned bunch I've ever met. There are obviously individual exceptions to this, but they only serve to prove the rule.
# Posted by: Greg at August 16, 2005 01:20 PMGreg,
In no way am I suggesting that criticism is never appropriate, and neither am I defending the actions of the priest you mentioned. My point is merely to mention that yours is not the only family who has suffered because of the rift in the church. Personal attacks, yes, but also the whole situation has been painful for individuals and disruptive of families on both sides. A recognition of that fact might give us pause and tone down the rhetoric once in a while, or at least choose our barbs more carefully, and it might even move us to compassion for those with whom we disagree. Perhaps there is very little we have in common, but we do share the disruption all this has caused, and if anyone is to claim to be a Christian in this whole affair, maybe we ought to pay attention to the pain of those with whom we disagree before we go strutting around self-righteously. The reason why what happened at Council was so despicable was that one priest had attempted to do what I have been talking about: becoming vulnerable, being honest, allowing others into his pain, and that was exploited by the clergyperson you mentioned. Just as that was wrong, so is it also wrong to ignore the humanity of those with which we vehemently disagree.
Maybe I don't read the boards on here often enough to pick up retractions and the sort. It's absolutely true that the most offensive postings do not come from you, and yet I unfairly project them onto you since you are in charge here. I just wish that the sorts of graceful, honest expressions like you posted earlier would become the rule here, not the exception.
AC
# Posted by: at August 16, 2005 02:02 PMAC3,
OK... I understand what you mean. I wish all of my posts were graceful and honest too. The problem is that I'm far more honest than I am graceful, and I'd venture that that's the problem with most people.
This site and others like it - although this one more than most, because we're pretty much unmoderated - may not be pretty to behold all of the tie (or even most of the time), but if nothing else, they serve as valuable documentary evidence of the mood of those Episcopalians who have chosen to be engaged in this debate, both conservative and liberal. It's certainly the only place in this diocese where one can have complete freedom to debate the crisis. As such, I'm not convinced that it need be all sweetness and light to be valuable.
# Posted by: Greg at August 16, 2005 02:38 PMTo those who are interested in the marketplace of ideas, the internet is a wonderful thing. It is a technological device which connects people who would otherwise never have the chance to share thoughts and idea. It even changes the opinions and beliefs of those who choose to connect through the internet.
But this is just like any other marketplace of ideas. There is general right to speak one's mind and trust in each hearer to discern the truth for themselves. As in any marketplace of ideas, the marketplace can not, will not be limited to only those sanitized thoughts or beliefs which are innnocuous to all. Because this reduces the conversation to the lowest common denominator.
It is certainly the love of the heterodox who wish to be reductionistic about everything. And, it is certainly the spirit of the age to plead the victem and demand protection from offensive speach. As if speach could somehow come through the computer and somehow hurt the reader.
So liten up. No one is being physically threatened or even spoken to particularly harshly. IF it gets to be too much, simply turn off the monitor. It's that easy.
And for those who will inevitably come back and say "Just because we can doesn't mean we should", I would remind us that we have an obligation to contend for the faith once delivered. For we believe that it is the obligation of the christian to contend for the faith once delivered. In fact, there are entire epistles written entirely about the refutation of heresies, and it is not just the Pauline letters. And, in fact if one takes the great commission at its word then one must by very definition have a concrete message to deliver to the potential convert. So, as americans we encourage the marketplace of ideas and as christians we are obliged to contend for the faith. All of which are heartily done on the website by it's webmater and many of the commenters.
For those who continually cry, "too much, too much" or "please soften the message". I would say, reread the bible. Because in the majority of the accounts I've read there was almost always a mixed reaction to the Gospel. MAny, mostly sinners welcomed it. Others of position with too much too lose (read the pharisees etc) almost always "rent their clothes". So, the Gospel has hard edges. We don't ask for it to have those edges. It simply does. It is sometimes even a mark which identifies the real preaching of the Gospel. And, it all comes down to the fact that we are sinful and no one other than a sinner wants to hear that.
# Posted by: Boar in the Vineyard at August 16, 2005 03:08 PM
Greg,
Well said.
I'd still direct you to a point I made earlier in my first post complimenting you. I think the problem with a lot of the rhetoric is that people assume that they can only be honest by being angry. Certainly, honesty requires that one be enraged at times, but I think that anger, cynicism, and sneering often serve as covers for what really lies beneath: hurt, betrayal, abandonment...in short, what I keep coming back to: vulnerability. It is FAR easier to be angry than it is to show just how vulnerable we all are. Neither do I believe that exposing these parts of ourselves are either sweet or light.
I do believe this site has value in its ability to let Episcopalians run amock and express what they need to express. That said, I do wonder why certain members, who are neither Episcopalians nor Mississippians are permitted to shoot from the hip about people they have never met. Bear in mind, these are not the attacks that worry me; they typically come off as crazy and of no real consequence. You, however, ought to be worried, as every post reflects on the organization of which you are a member and the goals for which you struggle.
In the end, whether we agree or not, I am absolutely convinced that anger will not change the church the way you would like it to change. Real, substantive shifts in thinking will come from a willingness to act out of a spirit of love that is both honest to its fury and its frailty.
Yours,
AC
I have observed with interest this conversation between Greg and AC.
Re: "My point is merely to mention that yours is not the only family who has suffered because of the rift in the church. Personal attacks, yes, but also the whole situation has been painful for individuals and disruptive of families on both sides. A recognition of that fact might give us pause and tone down the rhetoric once in a while . . . "
Actually that's why I don't generally dwell on the pain and suffering of *either* side. I'm more interested in truth and that's what I work hard to think about and dwell on rather than the losses and pain.
We all suffer and experience pain, not merely in church fights -- and I don't expect anyone to focus on mine. In fact -- I'd prefer that no reappraisers get their hands on my feelings, since they most likely will try to have some sort of reconciliation committee or official dialogue -- and then ask me to be quiet, since *their* feelings will be hurt if I speak.
Only my very dear friends and family are allowed to say or do much with my feelings.
That's because I'm so delicate and all.
; > )
Regarding people who are not Episcopalians or Mississippians shooting from the hip and commenting on this blog -- I really don't care a bit. And I hope that Greg isn't worried a bit either. In fact, when people come on and express their thoughts, I'm glad. If they are intemperate unkind remarks, then no one will care -- and they will serve as a pleasing contrast to the reasserting Episcopalians' comments.
If I wandered over to a Roman Catholic blog and there were no rules about who could post, I'd feel free to comment a bit. I just feel honored and a bit surprised that people of other denominations are at all interested in a minority group of reasserting Episcopalians duking it out in a fairly small denomination that is essentially careering toward irrelevance. Personally . . . if their are going to be any rules about who can post comments, I'd just as soon Stand Firm ban all reappraiser comments. ; > )
But . .. . I've heard from a number of people of various denominations *particularly* in the past two or three months who have specifically thanked us for our efforts. They say we have done far, far more than we can imagine for their own efforts within their denominations.
This is also a great honor, and when I hear words like that, I realize that even defeat -- as public as it can be, God willing -- is absolutely worth it.
# Posted by: Sarah at August 16, 2005 03:46 PMThe subjective terms and phrases that often characterize these discussions, such as our "hurt", "vulnerability", "frailty", "sense of oneness", etc. belie the real issue, whether or not the Episcopal Church has embraced policies and practices that are contrary to the clear meaning of Scripture. There is only one correct answer to that question, and whether that hurts our [human] sensibilities is, frankly, beside the point.
Greg's comparison to the DC Air Florida crash is a good one. As a denomination, ECUSA is no longer an environment that is hospitable and nurturing to traditional Christians. No one believes that will change. Personally, I don't know one person fighting this fight who believes they will be in ECUSA in four years. You can stay on a temporary basis in a hostile environment to help others escape. But if you stay too long you to will sink.
# Posted by: Barnabas at August 16, 2005 03:50 PMAC3,
As for those who aren't Episcopalians or Mississippians, all I can say is that after the first 2 or 3 months, this site moved well beyond the Episcopal denomination and the state of Mississippi in it scope and audience. We have people who have joined the organization from almost every state in the country. Our audience, and those to whom we feel we owe a degree of editorial or missionary loyalty, include those who have left the Episcopal Church as well as those who have stayed. The real debate we're having - the authority of Scripture and an orthodox Christology - is also being had to various degrees in other denominations as well. There is nothing special about being Episcopalian that frees you from having to engage non-Episcopalians in debate. You're right that there are occasional ill-advised remarks that are more personal than they need to be, but I think most of the time that's because they're exchanged between people who aren't, after all, complete strangers. Barbara+ the lesbian priest and Michael the conservative good ol' boy, while they couldn't disagree more about core matters of theology, overcame their initial animosity and have become the best of online friends. Tom Head and I traded some of the sharpest barbs for months, but we've become friends, exchanging numerous private emails and becoming confidants of sorts with each other. Some of the the exchanges we've had over the last 6 or 8 months have to be read with the understanding that we're trying to one-up each other, not actually insult each other. We should probably cut that out until it's understood by more people that while we'll probably never agree with each other on this debate, we respect each other and would never allow true harm, physical or emotional, to come to each other. In fact, Tom went to great lengths to defend me on another site when it would have been much easier for him to do nothing at all.
Stepping outside what I believe are remarkable "success stories" of people moving up from base hostility into true friendship, even while their differences in this debate were sharpened, I think you and I may have different expectations out of this site and ones like it. You seem to be expecting this to be a place where minds can be changed; I am not. I don't believe for a second that we've changed more minds than you can count on one hand. My purpose for this site is for those who have approached this debate either with no opinion, or a lukewarm opinion that leans to one side or another, to be able to read and listen to what we believe are some of the strongest cases made in our favor; to keep up with the constant flow of information surrounding the crisis; and to talk to others who share the same faith and perhaps even the same pew about where they stand and why.
We will not change many minds, if any, although we may give people who are slightly inclined to our side more reason to lean this way. What I do believe we've been successful at is making the case that if you're going to advance, or favor the advancing of, the pro-gay agenda in the Episcopal Church, you're not going to be able to do it on sound Biblical footing. If you ask me, that's been one of our biggest successes, maybe THE biggest. The debate that began, "Why can't you be nice to homosexuals the way teh Bible commands us?" has moved to "Why can't we just ignore those parts of the Bible that condemn homosexual behavior?" In that sense, we have helped clarify this debate for those who approach it with a clear head. I've always held that it's one thing to debate whether or not the Bible condemns homosexual behavior (it does), and another to debate what kind of church you want to belong to (one for which Scripture is authoritative, one for which it's not). While a lot of time and effort has been expended on this and other sites on the first question, I think we've been well past it and into the second for some time now. It's clear to me that we have two churches trying to reside inside of one, and that they hold to mutually exclusive theologies. I'd much rather we all just admit it and deal with the reality of two churches, than continue to try and reconcile two theologies that simply cannot be reconciled.
# Posted by: Greg at August 16, 2005 04:04 PMSarah,
Thank you for your comments. This conversation has (obviously) greatly interested me as well. I think I can see your point of view on outsider postings, and I certainly have no experience of people being grateful that their presence be permitted. Again, though, my point was that from the outside looking in, many do more harm than good.
I do disagree with you regarding "feelings." I know what you mean about reappraisers sending you to a reconciliation committee. I do know that "understanding" often is a guise for "shut up and listen." But I also know that when Greg said "OK...I understand what you mean" I tasted a bit of grace, and I tasted more when he wrote about the toll his commitment has taken on his family, and it happened in the midst of not anger but honesty about our brokenness. You said "We all suffer and experience pain, not merely in church fights -- and I don't expect anyone to focus on mine." I could not disagree more. While surely I don't want you prying into my personal life and neither do I want to do the same to you, our Gospel is a Gospel of compassion, which means "to suffer with." While the world may tell us just to take care of our own, my God tells me to stand with all those who suffer in mind, body, or spirit to the extent that my presence is welcomed, those with whom I may disagree, but those who nonetheless remain Christ in the world for me. If you don't want me anywhere near your feelings, I won't, but the moment you do, I think I have a commitment to be there.
Barnabas,
I never said "spirit of oneness." I do wonder how "hurt," "vulnerability," and "frailty" are contrary to scripture.
Greg,
Thank you again. Your responses to me triggered the question "Why can't more be like this?" In spite of what folks are starting to say on this thread, our exchange shows that a spirit such as the one you displayed is both desirable and more effective. You have no idea how more readily I would listen to another argument of yours and even be patient with an angry rant having seen a spirit of gracious vulnerability here.
AC
# Posted by: at August 16, 2005 04:24 PMAs a former "cradle" Episcopalian who joined the ELCA over a year ago, I was gratified at the results of the ELCA Churchwide Assembly.
While I am distressed that the Church Council came up with recommendation 3 (ordination exceptions) in the face of overwhelming opposition to any change, I am glad that the voting members acted as they did.
Like Eric, I realize that there is much work to be done if the ELCA is going to remain a viable, authentic Christian voice in these days of conforming to the world instead of the other way around.
AC,
I am one of those who hung in as long as he could, but when the hostility got too onerous, my wife and I left my parish of 45+ years. But we were blessed to find a group of loving, committed Christians in our new ELCA home. But I will continue to keep up with the happenings in the EUCSA until its final demise.
Greg, I just read your posting from August 15. I often feel the same way. My wife is sick of talking about the state of the Anglican Church of Canada (we're cunucks and are equally disturbed by the state of the CHurch north of the border). I'm not sure what the future holds, or if there is any posibility of victory. But I do know that God still rules the universe and is in control of this too. While there is no hope of victory to be found in man, there is hope found in God. Keep up the fight for King and His Kingdom.
your fellow unworthy servant in Christ,
Brian
AC,
It would be wonderful if we could have these discussions without hurting anyone’s feelings, but I’m not sure that’s humanly possible, given the nature of the debate. The rector in question knew exactly what he was doing when he instructed departing parishioners to confront a gay friend with their reasons – he knew the conversation would be deeply painful for both parties, and expected the departing parishioners to back down before having it.
Of course, huge numbers of orthodox Episcopalians have ignored his advice and spared their gay friends the anguish of such a conversation. They have left in silence, keeping the pain to themselves and giving the revisionists a free ride in the process. We choose not to do so.
# Posted by: Wilson at August 16, 2005 05:39 PMWilson,
There is, actually, some good news to report out of that episode. I spoke with a prishioner who left the church after almost 4 decades as a member. He said he told the rector that he "wasn't leaving because of them [gay parishioners], I'm leaving because of you."
# Posted by: Greg at August 16, 2005 06:03 PMNow that's rich! Somehow, though, I expect the rector in question felt no pain whatsoever. Relief at being rid of another knuckledragger, maybe.
# Posted by: Wilson at August 16, 2005 06:26 PMAC, in one sense, I appreciate your concern for the vulnerability, e.g., feelings of others. No one should unnecessarilly hurt the feelings of others. Often, the words and phrases used in a debate like this are simply mean and serve no purpose.
I don't, however, believe it is a sin to hurt someone's feelings if such hurt is simply a natural consequence of action taken in love to save another. I would submit that our love for our fellow parishioners compels us to try to save them from deception and a church environment that is not faithful to the Gospel.
In the words of Christ, "Yet not as I will, but as You will." When we act contrary to the clear meaning of Scripture we are not acting in accordance with His will; when such disobedience rises to the level of policy and practice in a denomination it constitutes a present danger to the spiritual well being of its members. Tears, hugs, and group therapy sessions can be the devil's work if they obfuscate this danger. Reconcilation is meaningless unless it occurs at the foot of the Cross.
# Posted by: Barnabas at August 16, 2005 07:09 PMNo, no, Wilson. He didn't think of "knuckledragger" about the 4-decades-member that was leaving -- he thought "not a True Episcopalian".
; > )
# Posted by: Sarah at August 16, 2005 08:20 PMBarnabas,
I am reading Gerhard Forde's book, "On Being a Theologian of the Cross." Your comment, "Reconciliation is meaningless unless it occurs at the foot of the Cross" makes me think you would like this book if you have not already picked it up.
More Martha--I have bought it but not read it!!! Thanks for the nudge!
A quote from a review of the book in Religion Online by Ted & Winnie Brock:
"When we operate on the assumption that our language must constantly be trimmed so as not to give offense, to stroke the psyche rather than to place it under attack, it will of course gradually decline to the level of greeting-card sentimentality. The language of sin, law, accusation, repentance, judgment, wrath, punishment, perishing, death, devil, damnation and even the cross itself—virtually one-half of the vocabulary—simply disappears. It has lost its theological legitimacy and therefore its viability as communication."
Barnabas -
What would you say the theological contradiction is between vulnerability and the cross? I don't think any symbol better makes my point. As Christians, we are called to live a cruciform life--one vulnerable to world while in the service of the world, and yet the cross perpetually reminds us of our sinful condition and capacity for evil when that condition is married to self-righteous anger.
I think my point has been sufficiently distorted by now. Nowhere was I promoting empty sentimentality and some sort of hyper-P.C. watered-down discourse. I was merely noting that anger is not the only emotion we need to be honest to, and anger often is an easy cover for those emotions we would rather not be honest to.
AC
# Posted by: at August 17, 2005 01:00 PMBarnabas,
IT is one of the finest books that has ever been written. It spoonfeeds Luther's Heidleberg Disputation in such a way that even the novice can understand it. By way of a reccommendation, I can only say that both Paul Zahl and Fitz Allison have reccommended it wholeheartedly as one of their favorite books.
You can not read this book to soon or too often.
For those who have grown up in the catholic lite of ECUSA (all pomp and circumstance and no theology), it will be a revelation of immense proportion.
It promises alot and delivers even more. You will not be disapointed.
Boar
# Posted by: Boar in the Vineyard at August 17, 2005 08:52 PMGreg - Forgive the lateness of my response - life has not left me much time for catching the threads. You may have misunderstood my comment. I did not intend to imply that this was a long-term solution to the ECLA problem. Far from it. I meant to point out that they are right where ECUSA was at GC2000 and look what happened to us! I am praying that our plight is a wake up call not just for ECUSA (please God!) but also for the other denominations teetering on the brink of becoming just another country club sect. I fully agree with you -- The pain of standing in the breech is often knee bending - but then that is where we find our strength and the only reason to carry on.
As for me and my house, we will stand as long as He gives us strength to do so and pray we recognize the rescue ship when it comes.
One more thing - your efforts are much appreciated by many. As for those who cry at the truth, let's pray their tears soften their hearts so God's Words can penetrate.
# Posted by: Jackie at August 19, 2005 05:34 PM