In a comment in the "Rainbow Warriors" thread on the Stand Firm web site, oscewicee writes:
I have a question for bwd - will anyone on the reasserting side accept it if “listening” doesn’t result in full affirmation of the homosexual lifestyle? If not, isn’t “listening” a euphemism? [Note: "reasserters" = conservatives, and I think oscewicee, based on this comment meant "reappraising" and has confused the two, as I did before Greg Griffith kindly corrected me.]It is clear to me that most of the conservatives do not intend to accept the "listening" if it does result in full affirmation. They have already demonstrated that they would rather leave the Episcopal Church--or force it out of the Anglican Communion and replace it--than live with that kind of "affirmation." Quite frankly, the liberals in the Episcopal Church have shown more willingness to be in conversation than the conservatives. We are not the ones threatening to leave the church, running to foreign primates for help, or trying to split the Anglican Communion. And they blame us for creating schism.
Enough already. Maybe both "sides" need to look to the beam in their own eye, but the liberals are not the ones throwing stones.
Peace,
Jeffri
Jeffri,
ReplyDeleteThe "Whiny Party" post was not mine. It was posted by Greg Griffith. Check the byline.
Blessings,
Matt Kennedy
Matt,
ReplyDeleteMy apologies. That's what I get for trying to do two things at once. I've rewritten that part of the post.
Thanks,
Jeffri
You write:
ReplyDelete"It is clear to me that most of the conservatives [or reappraisers] do not intend to accept the "listening" if it does result in full affirmation."
From my outsider's perspective, everyone with ears to hear has been "listening" for decades now, yet a large number of people are unconvinced that any reasonable argument for "full affirmation" has ever been presented, although weak attempts have been made. Instead, they feel like a foregone conclusion is being rammed down their throats anyway. And why do they feel this way?
You write: "but the liberals are not the ones throwing stones"
Now surely you Episcopalians cannot say that you were not warned that this schism in the Anglican Communion would indeed happen if you proceeded with the consecration of +VGR? You WERE warned, repeatedly, of exactly the consequences you see coming to fruition today. Yet 'you' threw that one particular stone anyway -- the one you were told would be one too many. Isn't it a bit late for you to be saying "they started it"?.
No, Greg and the people behind him just said "enough is enough!" after you threw that stone. Are you listening now? TEC wasn't listening in 2003, of if you were, it sure seems strange for you to act suprised about it now. Were the warnings not clear enough?
They seemed so for me...
Heck, I'm just a Southern Baptist, what do I know? I've been watching from the outside for a long time now... wondering whether or not I could consider my EpiscoAnglican friends 'Christian Brothers and Sisters', like I can almost all Roman Catholics and members of many other Protestant denominations.
If 'Episcopalians' want be become another marginalized sect on the very fringes of Christiantity (like the UCC, MCC, UUC), that's fine. But please admit that you know the difference between choosing to abandon the ship, and being abandoned by it. Integrity demands such honesty. The vast majority of Christians of any stripe wish to stay the course. If your group insists on going off in a lifeboat, then Godspeed. But please stop acting like you were forced off the ship.
Sure we are listening, and what we are hearing are conservatives who say they are unwilling to live in a church where we can have honest disagreements about theology, belief, and practice.
ReplyDeleteWe are hearing conservatives who say they support civil rights for lbgt folks, yet they fully support an Archbishop who is actively advocating for legislation that would deprive citizens in his country of basic civil rights that all of us take for granted here in the United States.
We are hearing Dr. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, say that if scientists found a way to genetically or hormonally prevent a child from being lesbian or gay, he would advocate using it (http://www.almohler.com/blog_read.php?id=891) because it would remove a temptation to sin--as if lgbt folks are any more prone to sin than straight folks.
We are listening when we are labeled heretics for daring to interpret scripture differently. We are listening when conservatives continually harp on two or three "laws" against homosexuality but consistently ignore the vast majority of the 610 others in the Old Testament.
And, yes, we are listening when we are accused of politicizing church when the conservatives who are in the process of leaving the Episcopal Church are doing so because they no longer hold the primary positions of power in the denomination.
Yes, the Episcopal Church crossed the conservatives' line in the sand when General Convention consented to the consecration of Gene Robinson. However, they keep moving it. They drew one when we finally decided to ordain women to the priesthood and then drew another one when we began electing and consecrating women bishops. And it seems to me that many conservatives are convinced that Scripture and Tradition forbid ordaining women. Yet they found a way to stay in the Episcopal Church. They drew another line when we revised the Book of Common Prayer. They managed to figure out a way to stay within the denomination then, too.
Oh, and by the way, there are lbgt Southern Baptists--I dated one for a couple of years. We spent a lot of time debating Scripture, and I learned a great deal from him. I occasionally went to church with him. People in his congregation knew, but it was a case of "don't ask, don't tell." I'd rather live with honest tension and disagreement than hypocritical unity.
Thanks for 1) approving my comment -- unlike many 'liberal' blogs on your side of the fence, who censor opinions like mine, and 2)responding intelligently, rather than calling me names because I was raised a Baptist.
ReplyDeleteI'll say this much in response, and see if any true EpiscoAnglicans want to chime in -- I don't pretend to speak for SFiF or anyone else:
Albert Mohler [says] that if scientists found a way to genetically or hormonally prevent a child from being lesbian or gay, he would advocate using it
I've heard the as much from very many LGBT advocates, when they say "Who would CHOOSE such a life? Don't you think we would have chosen otherwise, if it were a matter of choice" or words to that effect. So I can safely ask, that IF it turned out that there was a choice in the matter, what would YOU choose for your children? Do you ever hope to be a granddad? Will you want your grandchildren to visit you gravesite when you are gone (sperm donors dont show up in the family plot)? It's a rhetorical question -- you don't have to answer...
We are listening when conservatives continually harp on two or three "laws" against homosexuality but consistently ignore the vast majority of the 610 others in the Old Testament
7 I think it is, the so-called "clobber passages" that condemn same-sex sexual relations. Meanwhile your team consistently ignores the several dozen biblical passages dealing with sex, with marriage, all of which exclusively proclaim male+female unions as the only form blessed by God. Sorry, but the shellfish argument is off-topic here. We're talking about whether Adam and Steve have any sort of precedent in the bible...
[BTW, if you have 610 references that dispute the 7, and conflict with the dozens that affirm man+woman as THE ONLY model for marriage, maybe now would be a good time to reveal them]
the Episcopal Church crossed the conservatives' line in the sand when General Convention consented to the consecration of Gene Robinson. However, they keep moving it. They drew one when we finally decided to ordain women...
Agreed. I've found the so-called "conservative wing" of the Epicopal Church to be very weak knee'd over the years, and it is true -- they have buckled on some very significant issues (that Baptists, Catholics, and the vast majority of Christians worldwide have stood very firm on) for many years. So you can be forgiven for thinking that "one more stone thrown at them" would be shrugged off just like all the rest have been.
But you were wrong this time, weren't you? This time, like a wife who was abused once too often, they meant it when they said "hit me ONE MORE TIME and that's IT!"
I don't blame you for not believing them when they warned you. But you've got to respect them for finally standing up for what they claimed they always believed, even while they buckled under so that nobody got their feelings hurt.
Anyway, thanks for the chat.
Marty,
ReplyDeleteAs long as people are civil and rational, I will approve their comments. I probably will not respond to every comment made, but some, like yours, set me to thinking. In those cases, I respond because it helps me think and clarify things.
We can go round and round about the "clobber texts," and we will not agree. We can go down the "Adam and Steve" path, and we will not agree. Frequently in Scripture, when God sets out a standard, there are later exceptions. And even when there are not, our understanding of what is said or meant changes over time. You can say it is comparing apples and oranges, and I will respond that it's all fruit.
At any rate, thanks for taking the time to write and give me some food for thought.
Peace,
Jeffri
Just food for thought:
ReplyDeleteIs an apple "equal" to an orange?
Sure, they're both fruit, but are they "equal" to each other?
Think about it some...