Letters
received during the week of 10 August 2003
[Editor's note:
It was again a very busy week for letters. We print once again
a representative assortment.]
'I know you guys are
doing your best to remain neutral in this whole debate, but...'
YOUR
EDITORIAL ASKS 'If
it were as crystal clear as some would say, then
why are those courses being taught? Why is it so
hard?' Some of
the courses are probably being taught so that people can learn and
study God's law. Some of
them are probably being taught so that people can be trained in the
art of undermining the Bible while appearing to uphold it, to enlist
God in favour of the life we have chosen to live anyway. Certainly
the Bible is capable of being interpreted as the writings
of mere humans; but our faith is that it is also the inspired
word of God,
and useful for instructing, correcting etc. The
more honest type of liberal cleric is prepared to admit that
the teaching
that same-sex intercourse is a novel teaching, and a departure
from the Bible.
I
know you guys are doing your best to remain neutral in this
whole debate and keep the church united but to suggest the
teachings of the
Bible are unclear is surely just nonsense, and amounts to
taking sides. The supposed
lack of clarity seems wilful self-delusion. The main
argument I read is that scripture says God blessed what he
made; he made people gay; therefore He blesses being gay and
everything
that goes with it.
Whether
or not people are born gay is a red herring; it may never
be proved one way or the other. The
argument cannot be true, unless it is true for every sin which
we are genetically
predisposed towards, such as aggression, alcoholism,
womanising etc. The other
problem with the argument is that it would have God blessing the
whole gay lifestyle, which includes a strong tendency towards promiscuity.
As most gay people will concede, monogamy isn't a gay norm at all,
but an invention to satisfy straight people. There
are plenty of liberals who have moved on to the logical next step,
and sought God's blessings for 'bisexuality' (where is the monogamy
in that?) or 'polyamory'.
A split
in the Anglican Communion, sad as that would be, would actually promote
unity in Christ's Church, where orthodox believers of all different
types increasingly dispense with denominational labels and the particular
beliefs which gave rise to them.
D.A.
Anglican
Diocese of Perth, Western Australia
11 August 2003
'When we say welcome,
people know we mean it'
REGARDING
CANON ROBINSON'S CONFIRMATION I can only say how proud I
am of our church and our convention. We acted in the whole spirit
of Christ's teaching to love one another. This is a mind-expanding,
church-expanding
time for all of us. We are sending a message that God loves
and welcomes everyone, and that we do not restrict the sacraments.
For those
who worry about what will happen to the Church, my guess is not
much, in terms of numbers. We will neither shrink nor grow much.
Four years
ago, my own congregation wrestled with appointing the first
openly-gay dean. Having acted to find the best leader we could,
we have been
blessed with a loving, vision-guided, Christ-filled pastor
in the Very Reverend Robert Taylor. We have grown, both in numbers
and in outlook.
Our congregation is more diverse. Our work in the world is
more powerful. And when we say "Welcome!", people know we mean it.
I hope,
as we all pray about these changes, we look to the good we are doing
and
not to the fear of change.
Tamara
Kincaid
Saint Mark's Cathedral
Seattle, Washington, USA
13 August 2003
'Ultimately right,
not always clear'
YOUR
COMMENT 'BIBLICAL WORDS ARE NOT THE LAST WORD.
They
are the living word' assumes a certain doctrinal standpoint regarding
the relative authority
of scripture and 'revelation' which many, perhaps most, Anglicans
simply do not share.
The
idea that revelation supersedes scripture does not 'take away
my faith'
(why should it?) but it does make me extremely uneasy. Revelation
and Scripture are both important ways for God to communicate
with his people, but the test of revelation is whether it agrees
with
scripture. Where revelation and scripture differ and can't
be reconciled, revelation is wrong.
This
does not let us off from deep and prayerful interpretation of
scripture.
Just because it is always ultimately right, does not mean scripture
is always clear.
Nevertheless,
as stated I am afraid I think your doctrinal standpoint is incorrect.
Biblical words ARE in fact the last word. We just don't always know
exactly what they are.
Richard
Hain
Holy Cross, Cowbridge
Cowbridge, Wales, UK
11 August 2003
Er,
'unrepentant adhesion'?
I
AM DEEPLY SADDENED by
the events that occurred at the ECUSA General Convention this
past week. I strongly oppose the elevation of Canon Gene Robinson
to the position of bishop. Certainly,
our Lord commanded us to acknowledge that we are ALL sinners,
and to recognize that we must direct our attention to the "plank" in
our own eyes rather than the "speck" in our brothers' eyes.
Certainly, also, Jesus welcomed and love all, especially those
rejected and
unwanted by others. Extending His love to ALL is part of our
commission as Christians. I
could never belong to a denomination or church that excluded
or condemned
anyone — ALL should be welcomed lovingly into the Body of Christ.
How else, other than that welcome, extended by Christ, himself,
could ANY of us miserable sinners ever know the Lord?
However,
at no time did Jesus sanction a persistence in unrepentant
sin. Indeed, after intervening to prevent the stoning of the
adulterous
woman, Jesus said to her, "Go and sin no more." He did not say, "Whatever
lifestyle you wish to live is fine." Indeed, Jesus spoke quite
directly about sin, and indicated that while through Him we
are redeemed from
it, we are also to avoid it and to seek forgiveness when we
fail to avoid it. I believe that it is in Matthew that He says
that great
woe will befall those who lead others into sin.
How
can Canon Robinson, by virtue of his unrepentant adhesion to
a lifestyle
condemned in Scripture, do otherwise than lead others into sin?
How will he address young couples who wish to live together instead
of
marrying? How can the ECUSA, having elevated him to a position
of pastoral leadership offer "chastity" programs for youth?
I am a Youth Minister in my home parish. I was going to run
a chastity program
there this year. Now, I am struck by the irony of teaching
something to kids which ECUSA leadership publicly refuses to
practice.
I
agree with the Reverend David Anderson, president of the American
Anglican
Council, that the ECUSA has just identified itself as an "anything
goes" church. I concur with the many Primates from the Anglican
Communion worldwide who have declared that the ECUSA has drastically
departed
from the Biblical foundations that unite all of us as Christians,
and from the Anglican traditions and beliefs that unite all of
us in the Communion worldwide.
My
personal cross to bear is that I so deeply love my Anglican tradition,
the
Episcopal Church, and most of all my wonderful parish family.
Yet, I feel that I cannot, in good conscience, continue to worship
within
the structure of the ECUSA, given its current position. To continue
in communion with the ECUSA would, to me, by virtue of the tacit
approval rendered by my continued participation there, be a sin
against the Lord.
At the
same time, however, I cannot belong to a denomination in which the
pastoral leadership condones a practice which Scripture designates
as sinful. I will await the decisions coming out of Plano, Texas
and Lambeth. It is my fervent prayer that I will be able to remain
in the Anglican Communion, even as I will have to leave the Episcopal
Church. I am prepared to change denominations (to Lutheran/Missouri
Synod) if I have to. I comfort myself with Jesus' own words (also
in Matthew) that sometimes, to follow Him, we may have to turn from
our own families. Although I now feel orphaned from the Episcopal
Church, I remember with joy that I am part of the universal Church,
and that I share, with all of Christendom, in the hope of eternal
life.
Elizabeth
Ivany, Ph.D.
Norco, California, USA
11 August 2003
'Above the people'?
HELLO,
HALO, HALLOW,
and mahalo, (Hawaiian thanks). Missing
the point: It is not that the new bishop is queer, but that
he put himself above the people. Recalling your explanation,
schism versus heresy,
this is schism...
Our
rector, Carol Arney, was at the convention. She explained from
the pulpit all the justifications re the
rightness of the vote. But if it was righteous today, why was
it not
right
a thousand years ago?
Mike Lawler
Christ Church, Kealekekua
Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, USA
11 August 2003
We
try to think and reason, we really do.
I
CHECK THIS WEBSITE every
Monday morning right after my email, and somehow you all always
have
something deep and wonderful to say.
Thank you, thank you, thank you for your gifts of love, intelligence,
and compassion, especially this morning for this editorial!
The whole cotton-pickin' Anglican Communion needs to read this,
especially
the people who don't want to think or reason.
I'm
already a (small-time) financial supporter of your efforts, and
will be
sending more money as I can. You have my prayers as well in this
mission
of information and support.
Belle
Minge Bishop
Church of the Holy Communion
Charleston, SC (USA)
doccon@knology.net
11 August 2003
'Persecuted and pilloried'
I
APPLAUD THE ELECTION of
Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire. As a Christian and
gay man, I was appalled by the way that a strident, self-righteous
minority coerced Jeffrey John into forfeiting his appointment
as
the suffragan bishop of Reading. A celibate gay man was forced
out because of blackmail by a minority in his own diocese threatening
to cede from the anglican communion and by the same blackmail
from
the church in Nigeria. The fact he is celibate shows the disingenuous
nature of his opponents—these conservative evangelicals revealed
that blatant hatred of gay people informed their decision;
after all, Jeffrey John is sexually abstinent. He has been persecuted
and pilloried
because of something he does not control: his orientation.
We all know he was not forced out because of his views. Several
Anglican bishops
share these views, but they are straight.
I
truly lament the degree of hate, threats, and coercion that come
from
opponents
of Gene Robinson and Jeffrey John. This spirit of hate,
and the desire
to reject and judge others, comes not from Jesus—and it
is blatantly
unchristian. Where a spirit of hate and coercion prevails,
it comes from the enemy.
So
I think the election of Canon Robinson is excellent news.The
Holy Spirit
must be the catalyst of the acceptance that gay love — in the
proper context of a permanent union — comes from Our Lord. It
is so hypocritical
for the anti-gay lobby to say their view comes from adherence
to scripture. St. Paul says a woman must be silent in church
and cover
her head, yet most of the anti-gay camp support women's ordination
in spite of scripture. St. Paul endorses slavery. Can the opponents
of gay acceptance simply not see it is an absurd proposition
to maintain that everything St Paul said is inspired by God?
Both his attitude
to women and slavery reflect the culture of his day; similarly,
his condemnation of homosexual cult prostitution, which he is
right to
condemn, reflects an expression of homosexuality unique to
his day.
I
am saddened that opponents
of Canon Robinson want to leave. I feel they should stay
and disagree in a spirit of love and grace, not acrimonious blackmail.
Keith
Rogers
St Aidan's, Leeds
Leeds, West Yorkshire, UNITED KINGDOM
derek.rawcliffe@lineone.net
11 August 2003
'I love my church'
IN
DESPERATION, I MUST APPEAL to
the Anglican Church to reject the decision of the American Episcopal
Church to accept practicing homosexuals as ordained priests and/or
bishops. I was brought up in the Church of England and have been
a faithful member of the Episcopal Church since coming to America
in 1962.
However,
I can no longer remain within the church and must seek spiritual
guidance, teaching, and communion within another denomination—one
that remains faithful to the word of God and to nature as He ordained
it, and one that is not subject to the ever changing world of public
opinion polls. Yes, indeed, God loves the sinner, whether homosexual,
pedophile, murderer, or adulterer, but He calls the sin
of homosexuality "an abomination."
Is there
no integrity within the Anglican community? Is there no adherence
to the Word of God? Or is the Anglican Community,
especially in the American Episcopal church, just too desperate
to bring in new members?
I love
my church, its liturgy, tradition and the beauty of its Eucharist.
I have fiercely defended the church when attacked by others as
'behind the times, dull, boring, and irrelevant in the 21st century'.
However, I can no longer do so, and, with a heavy heart, must leave
the
church. I pray the Archbishop of Canterbury can bring sanity back
to the
Church and restore the faith of the faithful in the Church's integrity.
Ellen
L. Morris
St Joseph's Episcopal Church
Boyton Beach, Florida, USA
11 August 2003
Still waiting on the
cross
IT
IS HONESTLY AMAZING how
many people hate gay people. Hate us. And please, don't pretend
otherwise, it's hate. Is hate
contrary to
what the Gospels preach? One wouldn't know the answer to
that question if the only materials available to go on were most
of the letters
published this week. Who speaks for God? Are
gay people — and we are people, just like you! — expendable?
And please know,
God
just heard
you answer in your heart.
I
know when I stand before God, there will be a lot to review.
A lot. I also know it won't
be because I
am a gay man. Being gay has taught me compassion and
faith. When I think of Christ, I see a lonely man hanging on
a cross
wondering
why he is alone. I do not think He is hateful, only hopeful.
And I think He is still on that cross, waiting.
Michael
Benac
Evanston, Illinois, USA
mbenac@hotmail.com
12 August 2003
What has been left out—and
why it matters
SEVERAL
THINGS HAVE BEEN OMITTED from
discussions of same-sex unions and of the confirmation of Gene
Robinson, which genuine compassion
or a broader view might suggest.
The
first is the witness that homosexual unions can and often do
bear to the transforming effect of loving another human being.
A minority of humans are homosexual, and it is through homosexual
love that they experience the glimpses of God’s love which heterosexual
couples see through traditional marriage: unconditional acceptance,
love transforming the personal view out from the self, the wonder
of giving and receiving love. To deny this to homosexuals is
to deny a path which leads toward God and toward growth to full
human potential. The only alternative on offer appears to be
compelled celibacy, which is not something that can be demanded
of others simply because of their identity.
The
second is the positive example of good, faithful, and loving
relationships that same-sex unions do often set. These are examples
of what
marriage can be, and not something which will somehow either
detract from traditional marriage or encourage young people to
choose, as the bishops fear, between “two alternate pathways.” If
they are heterosexual, as most of them are, then traditional
marriage is available. If they are homosexual, as some are, then
same-sex unions would be a gift.
In
addition, same-sex unions would save many homosexuals and their
partners from heartless and soul-destroying heterosexual marriages
in which they cannot function as whole persons.
I
see many objections to same-sex unions in the recent Vatican
statement, but little affirmation or real compassion. The British
Catholic Bishops’ Conference seems willing to go only as far
as it absolutely must, but it appears to have no positive suggestions
how to recognize the needs of gay persons or to incorporate their
witness into the life of the Church. The ECUSA seems to be in
about the same place, and many correspondents on this site seem
to have nothing to offer for homosexuals but condemnation if
they are honest, and rewards if they are silent. All seem to
be against much, but to have little positive direction to suggest.
As
to Bishop Robinson, we need to remember that he was duly elected
by the diocese he will now serve. To assume that the Holy Ghost
cannot work through the democratic process is surely to limit
God’s work in the world, and to ascribe this election to politics
(how did we get an Anglican Church in the first place?), or fads,
or political correctness — is to deny both the possible workings
of the Holy Ghost and the legitimacy and genuineness of the prayers
and meditations of what was apparently a majority of Episcopalians.
“What
I suggest, therefore, is that you leave these men alone and let
them go. If this enterprise, this movement of theirs, is of human
origin it will break up of its own accord; but if it does in
fact come from God you will not only be unable to destroy them,
but you might find yourself fighting against God.”
Nathaniel
R. Brown
Trinity Episcopal, Seattle
Edmonds, Washington, USA
natxcgrind@yahoo.com
16 August 2003
For
better or worse
LOYALTY
AND COMMITMENT TO THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH … for
better and for worse! In
this time of criticism, I would like to suggest why the Episcopal
Church is a good and joyful thing. I am a cradle Episcopalian
and priest and this is where I live out my commitment to Jesus
Christ. Here are reasons that I love being an Episcopalian and
intend to remain one. None of this has changed.
We
see through a glass darkly. Jesus Christ is our only hope for
true unity, our one clear glass. We do well to remember that
Jesus Christ is our ultimate authority, the living Word of God.
That has not changed. The disciples and early Church agreed upon
Jesus Christ, yet disagreed on many other issues such as having
to obey all the Jewish laws in the Old Testament if one became
Christian and whether those who denied Christ during the persecutions,
could return to the fold after the persecutions passed.
It's
not all about me! The Christian faith is not about just what
I choose to believe as an individual, but about what has been
handed down to us and what we hand down to the next generation.
We have 2000 years of historic, evolutionary, apostolic, and
catholic faith behind us (both the mistakes and sins, as well
as the improvements
and confessions). We have our Anglican roots of Scripture, Tradition
and Reason and walking the via media. We have
over 200 years of the polity of the Episcopal Church in the USA,
a representative polity. I am willing to live and move and have
my being in the midst of this imperfect denomination because
I know that I do not know it all and that it is not about the
whims of a particular decade or century.
Checks
and balances. Our church polity consists of checks and balances.
All bishops are elected by laity and clergy. Both the House of
Deputies and the House of Bishops have to agree upon a resolution
before it is passed. Important issues do not pass lightly and
no one individual in the Episcopal Church has ultimate authority.
We recognize that all are subject to error. We trust that over
time, the Holy Spirit will guide this Church, even though we
have erred and strayed from God's ways like lost sheep in far
more serious ways than in whom we ordain or in whom we bless.
Scripture,
Tradition, and Reason Episcopalians and Anglicans believe that
we derive our authority from balancing what is revealed in Scripture
with our tradition and with reason. Indeed the New Testament
itself emerged out of the tradition of the early Church and only
became canon (the standard) after much debate over hundreds of
years. It was voted on as canon by early councils of bishops
over the first few hundred years of Christendom. We ALL have
the one holy catholic and apostolic church, as it listened to
the Holy Spirit, to thank for the canon of the New Testament.
A dynamic and living relationship with God and a respect for
tradition is the crucial part of our interaction with and interpretation
of Scripture. We do well to take warning when we think we have
the exclusive correct interpretation of scripture. The Pharisees,
who contributed to Jesus’ crucifixion, and who represented mainstream
Judaism, had their heads so buried in the Old Testament Scripture
that they did not recognize God in Jesus Christ when He walked
right in front of them!
God
has not given us a spirit of fear. Historically and politically
we have said that we are willing to speak freely in our denomination
and trust the process of debate and discussion. All questions
are welcomed. Schism over the issue of the day does not reflect
loyalty or commitment, nor an understanding of our history. Schismatic
groups … and there have been a number of them … who have broken
away from the Episcopal Church over the last two hundred years,
are either no longer functioning as an institution or are too
tiny to be significant. If we do not focus more upon what we
hold in common, then we too might become insignificant. We would
do well to being praying for unity.
The
Reverend James B. Shumard
St Francis of the Islands
Savannah, Georgia, USA
stfracnsi@att.net
16 August 2003
What makes us a family
BECAUSE
I MOVED FROM
THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH to the Lutheran Church
when I married a Lutheran and because I am not an educated man
and
make
my living
with my hands, I am sure that there are some that would say that
I have no right to say anything about issues in the Episcopal
Church. Though I have been very active in my current parish for
over 15 years, a part of my heart is still and always be Anglican.
I
was very happy a couple of years ago when the Episcopal and Evangelical
Lutheran Churchs joined in full communion. I am very saddened
that some
bishops of the Church are talking about schism in
the Church or that the Episcopal Church may find itself cut
off
from the Anglican Communion. Catholic means universal.
We
are a family. Family should mean that we love one another. We
love one another as Christ loves us. So what if 'Uncle Gene'
is a little weird. He is still part of the family of God. Before
anyone walks away from this family or is kicked out of the family,
some time should be spent on what makes us a family: The love
of Christ
— Salvation by God Grace — That we are all in the image
of God created. 'Sin boldly! That you may rejoice even more boldly
in Christ Jesus and His victory of sin and the grave.' Martin
Luther
Thank
you for listing to me.
Walter
Hold
St Timothy Evangelical Lutheran Church
Norfolk, Virginia, USA
Seebaer1192@netscape.net
16 August 2003
Earlier
letters
We launched our 'Letters
to AO' section on 11 May 2003. All of our letters are in our
archives.
|
