Letters
received during the week of 2 November 2003
Usquequo...
HOW
SOON WILL YOU BE moving ECUSA
into the category of 'Not in Communion?'
Also,
how soon will you have up a list of the bishops who participated
against Scripture, Tradition AND Reason in laying hands on Mr.
Robinson.
Gary
Boyd
Grace Church
Georgetown, Texas, USA
g.dboyd@verizon.net
3 November 2003
1)
When the Archbishop of Canterbury determines that the Episcopal
Church in the USA is out of communion. 2) Never. We don't publish
lists of bishops.
'I
am enthused'
I
AM ENTHUSED BY THE COURAGE of
Gene Robinson and the good Christian people of New Hampshire
for their bravery and courage and saddened
by the homophobic reaction of those who have vitriolically opposed
the ordination of this good Christian man. Once
upon a time these same people would have condemned those who
promoted the idea of a world that was spherical as heretics.
Time moves on, and two thousand years of oppression, condemnation
and scapegoating of homosexuality is enough.
I
grew up in the Church of England as did many of my friends; however,
I left when it became obvious that my sexuality was in conflict
with the prevailing view of my sexuality at that time. How unfortunate
for the Church that so many valuable souls have been lost to
it by its intransigent and wicked condemnation of God's gay children.
The
arguments against homosexuals would not be countenanced if it
was a matter of colour or race, so how do you justify inhumanity
and injustice on the basis of sexuality? How dare you assume
to insult so many wonderful human beings who give so much to
life's rich tapestry? Not
only do you insult me, but you insult God and the teachings
of his son Jesus Christ by your narrow-minded values and obsessive
attitudes.
Where
is your sense of love and compassion? If the hatred animosity
and intolerance displayed in recent weeks is anything to go by,
I was right to turn my back on the Church of England aged 16,
and your Church is all the poorer for my absence and the absence
of my good friends. You should
be made aware of the suffering you cause, by your ignorance and
lack of faith.
David
Frederick Wainwright
Plymouth, Devon, ENGLAND
3 November 2003
'I
am proud'
THE
FOCAL POINT OF OUR WORSHIP experience
as Anglicans / Episcopalians is the Eucharist. If we are truly
conscious to this point, then
we must never turn away from the fact that the spirit of the
Eucharist is being in Communion with everyone. In my heart of
hearts, I
do not believe that our Lord would segment celebrants or congregants
as they partake in His Supper.
As
others have stated, I am proud to be in standing with a Church
that is inclusive. We are one in Christ.
Timothy
O'Kennon
All Saints' Church
Atlanta, Georgia, USA
token30305@yahoo.com
3 November 2003
'I
asked God to change me'
I
HAVE A HOMOSEXUAL BACKGROUND. I
grew to believe the argument 'you were born that way, you can't
change'. It felt wrong, but
I couldn't change, I tried... I thought the solution must be
that it is
not wrong, it was my belief that homosexuality is wrong is what
needed to change. I got into arguments with the 'fundamentalist
bigots', but it wasn't really them I was arguing with. I was
arguing with myself.
I
went deeper into the lifestyle. Instead of liberation, all I
found was that I was getting deeper into bondage. I couldn't
control my lust anymore, it controlled me. I found myself doing
things which I always said I would never do. But I was free?
I
met a Christian girl at work. She had a glow about her. She invited
me to church. I had just moved to the country and was lonely,
so I said "why not?" (at least I wouldn't be stuck by myself
another night). She invited me around for Christmas. Her family
had something about them ...a love... a peace. I wanted some
of it. I 'became a Christian'. A sense of peace entered my life.
But the homosexuality was still there.
I
asked God to change me. The homosexuality was still there. I
got baptised. The homosexuality was still there. I figured I
should change myself. The homosexual feelings got stronger. I
tried harder. I failed. The homosexual feelings remained. I gave
up. 'God, if you want me to change, you are going to need to
change me'. The homosexual feelings disappeared. A new friend
sent me a letter saying she was in love with me. We discussed
my history. We got married anyway.
Since
then, the homosexual feelings still return at times. I have learnt
to turn to God when they do, and not rely on my own efforts to
overcome them. In the last six years since becoming a Christian,
my life has changed. Married, a daughter, acceptance. The greatest
thing? A relationship with God, who loves me in all circumstances.
Who loved me while I was in the pit, but didn't leave me there.
The
Bible is true. Homosexuality is a sin. Those who live in sin
reap the rewards... a life of bondage. But there is a God who
can lift you out of that. You can't do it yourself, you need
a relationship with Him. It is as you grow in that relationship
that the chains come off. How do you grow? You fail to live up
to the standard, and realise He loves you anyway. And again.
And again. You realise that there is nothing you can do to make
Him love you more, and nothing you can do that will make Him
love you less. Your heart changes. The chains come off.
Richard
Berks, UNITED KINGDOM
being_set_free@yahoo.com
3 November 2003
From
a Roman Catholic
I
WOULD LIKE TO CONGRATULATE you
and your Church for taking the courageous step of consecrating
the Right
Reverend Gene Robinson as the first OPENLY gay Bishop. I say
openly because, let's be real, I think we can agree that the
chances that he is the first gay Bishop are very slim. He
has shown honesty,
sincerely, and faith. Sounds to me like a good bishop!
I
am saddened that my Church will not, in my lifetime, do something
so honestly.
But you and your Church are moving forward with giving ALL
of the children of God access, you are proving to be a prophetic
Church. Again, congratulations to the Anglican Communion
and
to the new Bishop Gene Robinson.
Leo
Whitlow
Roman Catholic
Portland, Oregon USA
Whitbo2000@yahoo.com
6 November 2003
'No
one would ever choose'
I
REJOICE IN THE CONSECRATION of
Bishop Robinson. Sexual orientation should never be considered
in leadership positions in the church.
Sexual orientation is as God-given as skin color. No one would
ever choose that if it were not given to him / her by God. When
one accepts Jesus as Savior and becomes a child of God through
faith in Him, is he not accepted by God and assured of eternal
life at that moment?
Then
God's word is the same for all His children, 'to love the Lord
with all your heart, soul, and mind, and to love your neighbor
as yourself'. Anything else is between God and his child. I will
answer to God for myself and for no one else.
Rusty
Callaway
St Thomas Episcopal Church
Columbus, Georgia, USA
rustycal@aol.com
5 November 2003
No,
we
weren't familiar with Bishop Laney.
ARE
YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE HISTORIC WORK of
Bishop Benjamin Laney in promoting church tolerance?
"Benjamin
Laney, Five Sermons, Preached before His Majesty at Whitehall.
Published Severally by Command. And Now Printed together, tending
all to give Satisfaction in Certain Points to such who have thereupon
endeavoured to unsettle the State and Government of the Church.
By the Right Reverend Father in God, B. Lord Bishop of Ely." Benjamin
Laney (1591 - 1675) was a Bishop who tolerated Nonconformists.
The five Sermons collected
in this volume were described by Canon Overton as 'especially
worthy of notice as giving a complete compendium of church teaching
as applied to the particular errors of the times, showing a firm
grasp and bold elucidation of church principles'.
Only
under Bishop Benjamin Laney's personal direction as Vice-Chancellor
at Cambridge were Jews able to study at Cambridge University
during the Reformation. Benjamin Laney simply classified them
as 'Nonconformists,' like himself, instead of being labeled 'hated
Jews.'
I
think this is an important story of historic church tolerance
toward Jews and others at a very troubled time in history that
needs to be publicly retold today.
One
way to do this would be for a modern International Jewish (or
other) organization to help endow a new Chair of Tolerance and
Nonconformist Studies at Cambridge as a PR move and to allow
the modern Laneys to memorialize and republish Bishop Benjamin
Laney's essentially unique early history of tolerance toward
Jews in Reformation England.
More
importantly, this unique history also implies that both King
Charles I and II, who actively endowed and befriended Bishop
Benjamin Laney, were also tolerant toward Jews and other Nonconformists.
That is the real story.
What
if the Royal family today decided to show this same
kind of open public commitment to tolerance and to nonconformists?
That would be a true tonic for our troubled modern world in which
intolerance now runs rampant again.
Dr.
Melvin Laney
Nonconformist
Washington, DC, USA
MLA@wizard.net
4 November 2003
John,
Gene, Simon, Garfunkel
THERE
HAVE BEEN NO DOUBT A NUMBER of
Bishops 'Robinson' in the Anglican
Communion. Maybe the name engenders controversy!
Some
years ago I re-read 'Honest to God', which when published gave
Bp John Robinson instant fame. Thirty years after it was written
I was astonished by how ordinary it all seemed! I
remember, too, being rather taken with his book 'The Human Face
of God', which must have caused some to wince at the thought
of Jesus actually being considered to be a sexual being. Anything
less, Robinson correctly stresses, would be heresy.
The
latest Bishop Robinson seems most unlike his controversial namesake
with an eirenic, gentle, private disposition. I have written
recently to him to assure him that not all Australian Anglicans
are secessionists. I like many of my sisters and brothers give
thanks that Gene Robinson has stood firm against bitterness,
hatred and manipulation and proclaims the inclusive church as
a true vision of the Church of God.
I
hope too, that I will look back in thirty years time and find
that the controversy of Gene Robinson is as passé as that of
John was.
And
if Simon and Garfunkel can forgive me one awful pun. 'God bless
you both, Bishops Robinson, Jesus loves more than you can know'.
Stephen
Clark
All Hallows on the Hill, and St John's in the Valley, Coromandel Valle
Blackwood, SOUTH AUSTRALIA
stephenclark@iprimus.com.au
4 November 2003
From
South Africa
I
WISH TO REPORT ON THE EFFECTS that
Gene Robinson’s consecration
has had on South African Christian Community. In the Cape Times
and Cape Review, full reports with
photographs of the consecration, was issued in Tuesday 4th November
newspapers. Headlines reading “Behind the schism in the
Anglican Church over gay bishop”, “Ndungane (Archbishop
of Cape Town) breaks ranks with African Anglicans on consecration
of gay bishop”, “Historic consecration deepens rift
in Anglican Church”.
Letters
to Editors of the newspapers, both from Anglicans, non-Anglicans
and Christian political parties rejecting the consecration and
calling homosexuality an 'abomination'. On the radio, secular
radio stations praising the Anglican Church for the consecration
and Christian radio stations rejecting the 'Anglicans'' stance
on the issue of Homosexuality.
Ordinary
Anglicans have been affected. The decision of New Hampshire to
consecrate Gene Robinson has been felt by Anglican brothers and
sisters
in South Africa, both negatively and positively, the former more
than the latter.
Today
I feel ashamed to call myself a gay Christian, worshipping as
an Anglican. If the gay clergy think that they are heroes and
saints for the gay Anglicans by disclosing their sexuality and
want to force the church to accept them as practising gay clergy,
then they should think twice about their calling to a church
they are called to serve and obey.
I
believe as a mentioned in my previous letter, it is only in God’s
time that we will be accepted as gay people. When that time will
be, only God knows and it is not for us to say when, like in
the Second coming of our Lord, only the Father has set the time.
Some
people reading my previous letter and this one might think that
I am not gay. But my beliefs are based on this: I respect my
Church's tradition for the better of the Communion (worldwide)
in sacrificial love, with praise to the Father.
Brothers
and sister Anglicans, let us work this issue out as a family
in LOVE, sacrificial love, that was poured out on Calvary’s
tree. Lord
Jesus, Prince of Peace, regard not our sin but the faith of Your
Church. Amen
Damian
Bellairs
Cape Town, SOUTH AFRICA
5 November 2003
'I
simply find the current state of affairs laughable'
IT
MAY BE WISHFUL THINKING on
your part, but it is unlikely that everything has been said on
the recent controversial ordination.
Those
who support the ordination of an openly gay bishop are far less
frightening than the loud-mouthed bigots whom the Anglican Community
already tolerates. Most so called 'fundamentalists' have that
combination of absolute certainty and relative stupidity which
is much more terrifying than anything Bishop Gene is likely to
threaten. A church divided on the gay bishop issue deserves to
fall. Whether it does or not is of little significance to the
majority of people, Christian or non-Christian.
This
is not a hateful letter. I simply find the current state of affairs
laughable. I wonder, do you think God takes the matter seriously,
or do you think He / She has more important things to bother
about? Is He / She even now laughing up His / Her sleeve at so
many Anglicans
with their knickers in a twist?
One
consequence of all this is that there may be calls for the Archbishop
of Canterbury to be given more authority. That would probably
lead to the situation similar to the Roman Catholic Church, where
even more people are forced into covert behaviour and hypocrisy
because
they realise
that what their earthly leaders are telling them to do is sometimes
patently stupid (e.g., 'Don't use birth control.')
John
Shemilt
Lathom, Ormskirk, Lancashire, UNITED KINGDOM
4 November 2003
'At
odds with the Anglicans worldwide'
I
AM A LIFELONG EPISCOPALIAN who
resents the label of ultraconservative because I oppose the
confirmation of a gay
bishop. Why would I take this position? Because it puts us at
odds with
the Anglicans worldwide. I don't pretend to have the answer on
who is right or wrong on this issue, but I do know that the management
of the church made a decision that is not in my best interest.
Contrary to the rhetoric I hear from the liberal or conservative
side, I don't believe that they both speak for God on this issue.
What I do believe is they all should be called to account by
the diocese they serve for putting our church in jeopardy. Perhaps
the real question is, have we allowed this elite bureaucracy
to become so ingrained that only they know what is in our best
interest?
Paul
Webster
Tucson, Arizona, USA
4 November 2003
Earlier
letters
We launched our
'Letters to AO' section on 11 May 2003. All of our letters are
in our archives.
|
