Letters
from 18 October 2004 to 24 October 2004
If you'd
like to
write a letter of your own, click here.
Whatsoever
you do to the least of my brothers and sisters
I
SORROW OVER ALL THE ENERGY expended to exclude gays and lesbians from
full inclusion into The (not our) Church. The Church is the Lord's,
and Christ is, according to the bible I read, for inclusion. Would
that we use half the energy to feed the hungry, educate others
so they may be self-sufficient, and back off on our western greed.
Having
reading the parable of the unjust judge and the widow, and imaging
God as the widow and us as the judge, when WILL we be tired and
worn down, like the judge, and actually seek justice?
Whatsoever
you do to the least of my brothers and sisters, you do to me....
Makes me think, worry and pray.
The Reverend Marilyn
Lamb
Anglican
Nova Scotia, CANADA
18 October 2004
No
longer interested
I
AM VERY HURT AND UPSET at
today's report on the rights of homosexuals to be treated equally
in the Anglican Church. You are effectively excluding me .... so
my response is simple...
Just
get on with your rapidly shrinking world of narrow bigotism, I
am no longer interested in what you do or say.
Joanne
Williams
Swansea, UNITED KINGDOM
Joanne_Williams60@msn.com
18 October 2004
A
loving difference of opinion?
THE
LONG-AWAITED REPORT has
been issued. The mild depression I have felt since this issue erupted
has not diminished. While I very much appreciate the love and acceptance
I experience in my local parish, I find it increasingly difficult
to worship in a communion where I am constantly being reminded
that the overwhelming majority would rather I was not here.
I certainly
am cognizant of the majority view; one could not grow up gay and
not be aware of it. I also respect those who disagree with me.
What I have real trouble with is the vitriol and inflamed rhetoric
that this issue is generating.
I recently
had an hour-long discussion with a dying uncle. For the first time,
he asked me if I was gay, even though I have lived openly as a
gay man for years. I acknowledged that I was. He then shared his
views with me. He wanted to 'witness' to me so that we could one
day be united in heaven. I also shared my perspective with him.
I regard that conversation as an act of love. How could I not be
touched by his kind intentions?
While
I made it clear that my understanding is very different from his,
I believe that, even at the end of his 91 years, my Uncle Mart
gained some understanding. And I learned that, even though we were
never close, he cared very much for me. In an attempt to provide
some comfort to him, I told him that Christians are not of one
mind on this topic. We were both able to find some comfort in that.
I did not try to 'change his mind' and he made it clear that, in
spite of our difference of opinion, he still loved me.
My uncle
was a member of an evangelical church. If he and I could have a
loving difference of opinion, isn't possible for the Anglican Communion
to do so?
F. William
Voetberg
Emmanuel Episcopal Church, Hastings, Michigan
Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
voet47@att.net
18 October 2004
You
are loved, you are blessed, you are welcome
I
WANT TO MAKE A STATEMENT about
the current situation regarding same-sex marriages and ordination
of gay clergy in the Church.
I grew
up in a household with a gay father who could not admit his sexual
preferences because of society's restraints. I was miserable, he
was miserable and so was my mother. I truly believe that if he
could have admitted his role and not been penalized at work {he
was a grade school teacher} or ostrasized by the community, we
all would have been happier and healthier in our relationships.
I congratulate
the people who voted for the ordination of Bishop Robinson. His
sexual preferences do not make him less able to preach Christ's
word. His sexual preferences should not even be an issue. His character,
his compassion, or even his understanding of the scriptures should
be the issue. The people of his Diocese knew him, loved him and
wanted him in a leadership position. That should be enough for
the rest of us.
When
it comes to same-sex marriages, lead on. The blessing of a monogomous
union should be paramount in our society. Who the union is between
is not our business. Monogomous couples whether straight or gay
deserve the same previlages and rights. We need to return to loving
our neighbor as ourselves and step away from judging our neighbors.
I understand,
maybe erroniously, that the Anglican Communion believes that the
Churches in the USA and Canada should apologize for the actions
taken in the last year or so. I also understand that they would
like a promise that no more such actions will take place. Please,
by all means apologize, if it can be done without admitting fault.
I do not believe that such a promise should be made. We are finally
moving forward in welcoming gays into
our midst and this cannot be wrong.
I would
love to see the Anglican Communion as a cohesive group that is
in agreement with all it's parts. But, that cannot happen as long
as any part is repressed. So to the Church here and world wide,
regardless of your opinions on these matters, you are loved, you
are blessed and you are welcome in the eyes of the Lord.
Eugenia
Madore
St. Paul's Episcopal Church
Winslow, Arizona, USA
19 October 2004
Sydney
has something to offer
I
WRITE TO COMMEND TO YOUR READERSHIP the excellent, searching and even prophetic Presidential address,
given by Dr Peter Jensen at Sydney Synod, Monday 18 October.
At the
end of a wide ranging address that lasted an hour and a quarter,
Dr Jensen called the synod to depend on God in prayer: 'I speak
as your chief pastor: we have yet to see a new spirit of prayer.
If our prayer-lives remain weak it is because we are still to be
overwhelmed by the message of God's love in Christ. I am asking
that we pray constantly, specifically, faithfully, earnestly for
the outpouring of the Spirit in blessing on the preaching of God's
word.'
One
of your correspondents this week (Tom Sramek) commented that 'the
church seems to be defensive, reactionary, and apologetic (not
in the defending the faith sense, but in the apology for giving
offense sense) rather than confident and unapologetic. Sometimes
I think we just need to get over ourselves and be about the work
of the Kingdom.' Tom, here is a brilliant example of a diocese
doing just that.
Sydney
bashing has become very popular lately, and sometimes, we do fail
to communicate with humility and grace, but I commend Dr Jensen's
address in the hope that others may see a church pressing on to
make a difference for the Lord Jesus in its city. One can read
the address here,
or even watch and listen by clicking appropriately on this
page.
As you
yourselves noted here,
for all its shortcomings (some real, some perceived), I believe
under God, that Sydney (and its Archbishop) has something to offer
the wider church.
The
Rev Mark Calder
http://www.rosevilleanglican.org/
Roseville, Sydney, AUSTRALIA
mncalder@optusnet.com.au
19 October 2004
Waste
of time, effort, and money?
REGARDING
THE WINDSOR REPORT 2004: You
call it "brilliant classic via media". I would probably call it
something else. Section B, paragraph 43 sums up what should have
been done, but wasn't; the failure to comment or make recommendations
on the "theological and ethical matters". You know, the things
that really matter. Maybe "waste of time, effort and money" would
be a better description. I seriously doubt anyone was really suprised
by outcome.
Darlow
Maxwell
Albany, Georgia, USA
19 October 2004
Is
God doing something new?
COULD
IT BE THAT God
is doing something new here? When Peter was hungry and faced with
an empty fridge, God offered him a sheetful of non kosher animals,
which is why we are no longer bound by Jewish dietary laws. Wherever
you stand on the homosexual bishops issue, you must admit that
the circumstances were unusual: New Hampshire rather than California,
a first round win rather than the usual horsetrading, and then
the fact that Gene Robinson has been openly gay for years, without
his parish or diocese being noticeably damned throughout his years
of ministry. The more significant question is what this means for
gay marriage: If he can be Bishop, fine, but without marrying his
partner he is presumably committing adultery every now and again,
which is perhaps an example his flock (and the rest of us) don't
need.
James
Forbes
Grace Episcopal Church
St. Helena, California, USA
19 October 2004
Pope
for a day?
I
HAD THE GREAT PRIVILEGE of
attending services at both Westminster Abbey and St Paul's last
week and prayed in both for the Eames Commission. I, too, think
that the Windsor Report is a masterful exercise of the classic
Anglican via media. Beyond that, I felt that the report was reflective
of the influence of the Holy Spirit in tone, spirit and counsel.
I felt that influence though personally I strongly identify with
the views of the Anglican Communion Network here in ECUSALAND,
and personally wish we could have a pope only long enough to put
Griswold and Robinson under interdict, or more; maybe a crusade
or two. After rejoicing in the committment to via media and communal
inclusiveness so abundant throughout the Windsor Report, I went
to the ECUSA web-site and read the hypocritical and evasive "initial
thoughts" of our much-to- be-regretted Presiding Bishop. A proper
response to his meanderings involves vomitus. I do hope that the
remainder of the Communion will pray for us poor Anglicans stranded
in ECUSALAND and that the Communion will take seriously the guidance
to reject admission of Griswold and Robinson to Anglican councils.
Pray that we who strive to remain with you may be one in spirit
with you.
Bruce
Pingree
St Michael and All Angels
Dallas, Texas, USA
bruce.pingree@bakerbotts.com
19 October 2004
Challenges
me to seek and serve
FOR
ALL THAT H. E. BABER CRITICIZES 'liberals'
for subscribing to stereotypes, her recent letter perpetuates not
a few.
I am
one of those liberals whom Baber decries as 'positioning themselves
on the politically correct side of the culture wars' and 'unable
to distinguish between mainline Christians and fundamentalists,
Episcopalians and holy rollers, [and] view all as equally benighted.'
My belief that the church must strive to full embrace of all people,
white and black, gay and straight, rich and poor, doesn't come
out of some misguided sop to political correctness. It is rooted
in that baptismal covenant I will soon renew on All Saints' Sunday.
It challenges me to seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving
my neighbor as myself, to strive for justice and peace among all
people and respect the dignity of every human being. The covenant
doesn't say, 'love only those who think the way you do' or 'respect
the dignity of those of whose behavior you approve.' It says 'all.'
I fail at this all the time, yet it continually calls me into valuing
people--all of us, every one--as completely and unconditionally
as God does. This is the core of 'morally correct doctrine.'
There
is something that gives me hope for our Communion. It's a community
supper that the shared ministry of which my parish is a part holds
every Wednesday night in one of the poorest, most drug-and violence-ridden
neighborhoods of inner-city Cleveland. My rector, a partnered gay
man, Anglo-Catholic to the bone, works alongside Episcopalians
from a conservative evangelical parish who kept our dying refrigerator
running for weeks past its appointed time by laying hands on it.
We serve a meal to homeless people, neighborhood children, drug
addicts and alcoholics, college professors, transvestites, wealthy
suburbanites, anyone who is there. All are welcome; all are cared
for. It is the closest thing I know to the Kingdom of God. And
it is in working together in love, in dedication to Christ made
manifest in our fellow human beings, that we just might pull through
this.
Gia
Hayes
St John's Church, Cleveland
Shaker Heights, Ohio, USA
ghayes01@hotmail.com
19 October 2004
Time
will tell what will happen
I
HAVE READ THE REPORT in
its entirety. It is "classic via media," managing
to give most groups both something to praise and something to complain
about. What happens next is anyone's guess.
As a
member of the ECUSA who supports Bishop Robinson's episcopal ministry
and the expanding presence of open homosexuals in the Church, I
am well aware of the implications of the recommendations the report
makes in regards to us. Expressions of regret are fine and good,
so long as it is carried out as Presiding Bishop Griswold has done
in expressing regret for the effects of the act rather than the
act itself. However,
the moratorium on homosexual ordinations and same-sex blessing
rites, if it is adopted, would be an unpardonable step backward
for our homosexual brothers and sisters. This may soon be the decision
we are faced with, do we chose to stop loving those whom Christ
has called us to love or do we chose to continue loving and accept
the consequences?
I don't
see the ECUSA turning our back on our brothers and sisters who
happen to be homosexual. I see us moving forward to be an even
more inclusive and loving Church. If this results in us being forced
to disassociate with the Anglican Communion, then so be it.
We are
not the Roman Catholic Church and the Archbishop of Canterbury
is not a pope. The section of the report that I found most disturbing
was the recommendations regarding increased power for the Archbishop
of Canterbury in regards to provincial affairs and the suggested
formation of an Anglican covenant to which all member provinces
would have to agree to uphold. It's pretty clear that the Anglican
Communion is moving to "get everybody in line" with one group's
version of the truth instead of respecting each province's autonomy
and the tolearance and diversity that historical Anglicanism is
known for.
I don't
understand why a decision that the ECUSA makes should bother another
province. Cannot a disgruntled province simply issue a statement
saying, "We don't agree with you?" Is it not understood that individual
provincial actions don't set unilateral precedent? We
are a Communion, a confederation bound together by common fellowship
and Christian love. Our prayer books vary radically as do our policies.
We understand, or at least we used to, that our Anglican Communion
does not require that we all agree. And if we, as Archbishop Akinola
suggests, "can only walk together if [we] are agreed" (pardon me
if my quote is inaccurate), then our Communion has been null and
void from the start. It would be absurd to suggest that there are
any two provinces that actually agree with each other on absolutely
every point.
Time
will tell what will happen in regards to the Anglican Communion.
Two questions regarding the acceptance of homosexuality in the
Christian Church seem to be demanding answers. If
not you, than who? If not now, than when? The
ECUSA has already answered those questions. If the Anglican Communion
answers those questions with "nobody" and "never" then perhaps
we as a Church need to reconsider our participation in this Communion.
Jesus
Christ, in the written records we have of him, said not a word
about homosexuality. But he did say something else. "Love one another
as I have loved you." His love did not differentiate between those
accepted and not accepted by society. He opened his arms to everybody
and died for his radical love, his arms spread on a cross. Have
we as a Church finally started to learn the lesson he taught us?
Or are we content, once again, to turn away... and close our eyes
against the sight of his tears?
Anna
Cleveland
All Saints Episcopal Church
Gastonia, North Carolina, USA
20 October 2004
Re-read
Jesus' teachings and get with the program
AS
A PERSON WHO KEEPS UP with
current events around the world I continue to be perplexed why
in the 21st Century the Anglican Church is still having the debate
regarding gays and lesbians in your church. It is time to be one
with Christ's teachings of love and inclusion of all. I suggest
that you re-read Jesus' teachings on such matters and get with
the program that he set forth 2000 years ago. If you consider
yourself a Christian, or even just a human being, it is the least
you can do.
Bart
Graham
non-Anglican
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
21 October 2004
Earlier
letters
We launched our 'Letters to
AO' section on 11 May 2003. All of our letters are in our
archives.
|
