So, you mean God works at Burger King?
“You want fries with that?” puts hell in a whole new light.
Julie
Wouldn’t it make more sense just to say that people are born innocent and deserve salvation until they do something really evil? I just don’t buy this notion that humans are inherently bad and that we have to constantly abase ourselves to be “saved.”
How is being gay “turning against God,” btw? Is gene Robinson bound for hell in your opinion? Will he DESERVE it?
while on the gay issue, I’m traditionalist, on the Hell issue, I’m not- so as to what we all deserve, I’m with Skammer in that God could well abandon us to ourselves & be perfectly good & fair. I’d add that resignation to let us go our own way would eventually lead to our dissolution, our cessation to exist.
Believing that God’s goodness however exceeds mere fairness, I also trust that in Jesus, God gives sufficient opportunity to every being to be reconciled, if not in this life then in the afterlife, perhaps even infinite opportunity, and the only damnation which anyone will incur will be in resisting those opportunities.
Jesus said that “The Judgement” is that His Light comes & that people prefer their darkness to that Light, but the Light keeps coming and glaring & yep, even burning. Paul said that we all shall be tried by His Fire & I also expect some radical singeing.
I’ll do my best.
Traditions aren’t more important than principles, but people are. People, unlike things, aren’t good at instantaneous changes. I change a line of code in a computer program to have it do something different, and neither the program nor the computer is bothered. People aren’t like that; as a rule, they need time to absorb major changes.
Up until this week, the more conservative members of the Episcopal Church have had reason to believe their church still regarded homosexual conduct and desires as sinful. As of yesterday (not the day before), that is no longer the case, as the Episcopal Church has given each diocese the freedom to explore informal liturgical expressions blessing gay unions, saying:
What a reasonable sort of church would do at this point, recognizing that people, being people, are going to have to adapt to this change of thinking, is to give them some time to get used to the new reality, and accept its implications, before moving on to the next steps.
With some of these next steps, they are doing so: it will be some years, for instance, before there is a formal, Church-wide liturgy for blessing gay unions:
But with another ‘next step,’ that of elevating active gays to positions of spiritual authority, they’ve jumped the gun. The day before yesterday, homosexuality was still a sin; now we’re supposed to look up to an active homosexual. That’s too much change to ask people to absorb at once; you can’t just push a button and turn a knob, and have them be where you believe they should be - even if you’re right about what they should ultimately come to believe and accept.
On preview, Poly, I see where you said:
No, absolutely not. Those who vilified and demonized do not deserve to be let off the hook. If they have been the shepherds, it is time they repented - and took a place among the flock, rather than among its leaders.
But most of the traditionalists were not vilifying anyone, or even speaking out. Most of them were in the pews, not the pulpits. They were just attending church, and believing what they believed, which was what their church said it believed. They are the ones on whose behalf I believe I’m speaking.
Zoe, you had another question I’ll try to answer:
Part of it is obviously, and unfortunately, the visceral reaction that many people have to the thought of homosexual acts.
But theologically, they had a legitimate point, if homosexuality was a sin. (I most certainly don’t believe it is; I’m just making the devil’s-advocate argument here.) We are all sinners, Christianity holds, but we aren’t supposed to just acquiesce to our sinful nature; we’re supposed to actively seek God’s help in letting go of our attachments to sin. But if homosexuality were a sin, gay Christians who were determined to remain gay would have decided to remain in sin rather than trying to cleanse their lives of that sin. That would be exactly the wrong example, which is why persons identifying as gay would have no business being priests, in that alternative reality.
Why isn’t being unable (or to put it less kindly, unwilling) to change to a correct standard considered a sin?
In general, I’d say it’s because if we who love and serve the Lord can’t work out our differences in peace and harmony, then who can? I’m unequivocally a Protestant, but I’ve got to say that one of Christianity’s greatest embarrassments is the willingness of Protestants to schism seemingly at the drop of a hat, resulting in literally thousands of distinct Protestant denominations.
I agree that sometimes the differences really are irreconcilable. But I think that it frequently happens that some are a bit too eager to shake the dust off their sandals, so to speak: a dramatic exit gives one a real adrenaline rush, especially when things are already heated between the opposing sides.
But there’s a lot to be said for waiting until the flash point has passed and receded to determine whether those differences are irreconcilable; to see what message prayer and reflection yields before taking extreme action.
That’s all in general. In the present instance, I would add that we know what the fruits of the Spirit are. As I’ve said already, I think that those considering schism would do well to see what the results are of this week’s decisions, and what sort of fruits they produce. In a couple years’ time, we should be able to discern whether Bishop Robinson’s ministry is a positive thing for the people of God. We should be able to discern the same of the blessing of gay unions in the Episcopal Church. I think it behooves the potential schismatics to stay long enough to see up close what the fruits of this week’s decisions turn out to be, and use that to add to their discernment of whether they were right or wrong. If they leave now, they will avoid (evade) having to deal with the possibility of being wrong.
Or they may be right. I doubt it, but if they are, there’s plenty of time to act on that later.
One final word: I am ignorant of the degree to which vilification and demonization of gays and their friends has taken place within the Episcopal Church itself. But plenty of it has certainly occurred across Christianity in general. If we are to know them by their fruits, there’s a case to be made that opposition to acceptance of gays within Christendom has produced the bad fruit, and should be found wanting on that account.
I don’t want to turn this into too much of a highjack about salvation doctrine, but I’ll give you my thoughts on your questions.
As too whether people are born innocent and remain so until they do something “really evil” – I like to believe that babies are born innocent, although Christians do not all agree. The problem, that I think most Christians would agree, is that they don’t stay that way for long. Even (especially) as children we put our own needs ahead of others, and do what we want instead of what we should. I’m not talking about natural things like crying when you’re hungry, but acts of will like disobeying your parents or hitting your sister. I think most Christians would agree that the bible is clear on this – “all have sinned… there is none righteous; no, not one.”
How is being gay “turning against God”? Well that’s the crux of the debate we’re having. First let me clarify that we are talking about actions, not feelings or desires. I don’t know of any mainstream Christians who believe that being attracted to the same sex is itself a sin. Poly, Siege and others would say that homosexual sex itself is morally neutral, and is fine in the proper context of a loving relationship (but can be misused outside of that, just like hetero sex). Traditionalists argue that homosexual sex (the act) is a sin, a misuse of sexual desire, similar to other extra- or pre-marital sex. Where you fall on that issue is the biggest factor in your resonse to Dean Robinson’s confirmation.
Is Gene Robinson bound for hell? Well [leaving my concept of Hell out of it], God only know for sure. But I’m pretty sure he isn’t. I believe he has experienced the same saving grace that I have through Jesus. I do think he is continuing to sin by being in a homosexual relationship, and therefore not an appropriate choice for Bishop, but I have never questioned his salvation.
Could you elaborate on your question? I think you’re saying, “Why isn’t the fact that traditionalists can’t (or won’t) accept this new standard of sexuality considered a sin?” But before I try to answer, I want to make sure I understand the question.
For me to forget every post you have submitted, I would first have to read all of them. Are you really so conceited that you take it for granted that I have read all of your posts? I don’t know what you mean by “the original questions”, seeing as how the OP contained no questions, nor do I see how it’s relevant, as it is widely accepted in GD to respond to previous posts even if they do not directly relate to the OP (and if your post was not sufficiently on topic for you, then that’s not my fault). I would think that once one considers the fact that the Bible was not written in English, the absurdity of the sentences that I quoted from you and Marley23 would become apparent, and I did think that pointing out the flaw in your statements would contribute something worthwhile to the discussion. I do not think the same of this post by you.
I can’t believe I feel like Pitting James Lileks, one of my favorite humorists . . . But he has a very mean-spirited and ill-informed Bleat today about Rev. Gene Robinson. Lileks does not seem to understand the difference between “cheating on your wife” and “no longer living a hypocritical lie of a life.”
[The Robinson section is after the opening “Ah-nold” section]
Well, hey, they do say their burgers are “flame-broiled.”
Poly,
Forgive me, if my words have spoken a condemnation of you. I do not “expect” you to begin healing the breach right now, or open your heart immediately to those from whom you have felt heartache.
But I pray for it. And, in fact, I know you will do it before twenty eight years. I have seen your heart at work before. I pray for it, because I love your heart, and want it to be made free of this pain. I know that I should be praying just as hard for those who still accuse you, and despise you, and despise our brothers and sisters. It is a failing of mine to pray most for the ones whom I love most, and not, as the Lord bid me, to pray for my enemies.
I am not an Episcopalian. The church next door to my home is an Episcopalian Church. Truro Church, in fact. A fact with a tiny irony attached. It was here, just two weeks ago, that the “conservative” bishops met to prepare for the issue we are now discussing. I should have been praying then, I suppose, for the love of those brothers as well.
I join my voice to those who encourage my Episcopalian brothers in Christ to abandon anger, and embrace love. It is our duty from our Lord to love one another. God bless you all, and comfort you in this time of trial.
Tris
Thanks, Tris. I have no doubt that I’ll come to forgiveness and acceptance, and soon, not in 28 years.
RT started the process, in fact, by pointing out to me that most of those hurt are not the active campaigners but the men and women in the pews. Certainly Skammer, whom I’ve come to cherish as a dear friend the past month or so, is one of those whom I would have described as “a compassionate conservative” before GWB coopted the term for his own political gain.
Mini-hijack: I was vaguely aware you lived in Fairfax. But back in the mid 1980s Barb and I made it a point to attend Truro when we came down to the DC area. The present Bishop of Central Florida, John Howe, who has been a leader in the opposition to Gene Robinson, and whose cathedral dean has much to do with Mars Horizon’s having turned away from Christianity ( :mad: ), was rector there then. We probably parked in front of your house! (And I must say that of all the Episcopal churches we’ve ever attended, they did the least to make us feel welcome of any. If Episcopalians are, in the old catch-phrase, “God’s frozen chosen,” they are the cryonic charismatics.)
Goodness Polycarp, I just noticed that you are in North Carolina. It was an honor and true joy to hear your diocesan, +Curry, preach at last Saturday’s Eucharist at General Convention. He is an awesome preacher…and had 2500-plus people on their feet when he was finished!
Awww… hugs for everyone!
Oops. Never mind then. sits up straight
Skammer
I wasn’t confused in the least. As I pointed out in my comments to you, just days ago I stood exactly where you are with the same feelings and position. The difference now is that I saw the inconsistency in that position and in light of what Jesus teaches, it was in conflict also. Something had to give.
Above you stated that you love and have compassion for those who are gay and you believe that their spiritual state is between them and God. I believe you were being honest, so why don’t you carry through on that? I faced that question myself.
I understand that your judgment is against an act and not the individual, but is it really? In view of your response to a gay Bishop it is equivalent to shutting the door on him, isn’t it? And in spite of your acknowledgement that God is in control?
Gold Dragon provided:
It is understandable that the scripture provided could be viewed as the right and justification for the church and individuals to condemn the act, but not the person, yes? The answer is no and the reason why is because the authority to do so belongs to Jesus. It is for Him to say Go, and sin no more. We are the crowd who should discard our stones and walk away, leaving it to Him.
That is what I realized. That’s what freed me from a burden I need not carry. And in understanding this in a new light I also realized the harm being done to those who would have the door closed on them by other Christians. It is not for us to build walls depriving them of having a close relationship with Him.
MrVisible, I was very touched by your post. I hope, too, that you will find the acceptance you deserve to have.
Thre tims now, I’ve wanted to say how proud I am that we have people like Eggeraus doing that badly needed ministry of service. Thank you, sir, from someone you’ll probably nevr meet in this life, for what you do in all our behalfs.
Zoe, the matriarch of the church in my home town where Barb and I spent 20 years in Purgatory was 95 when we met her, shortly after the '79 BCP was adopted, and died a few years later at just over 100. And she was fond of giving perspective when people were talking about the fight over the new Prayer Book: “You think this is a fight? You should have heard them when they adopted the 1928 book!”
Mr Visible, it would be the poorest of form to do any evangelizing here and now, particularly in view of some of what you’ve said in the past about treatment by Christians. All I will say, given what your mother told you, is, when you feel inside that it’s time to come home, the door will always be open for you, and inside will be arms outstretched in unquestioning love.
Edlyn, I badly want to understand your argument. I don’t think I know what you mean by this
or this
Could you please point out more specifically how I’m being inconsistent?
I don’t think so. Certainly I don’t think he is an appropriate choice for Bishop, given that he his best known for a doctrine he holds that is contrary to scripture and church teaching. However, I’m certainly not saying he doesn’t belong in the church. All are (or should be) welcome.
If you think I’m “shutting the door” of the church; the answer is no. If you mean “shutting the door” regarding the Bishopric, I don’t have that power (thankfully). If you mean “shutting the door” of my mind to his teaching or wisdom or pastoral care, I would say that it is more of a filter than a door.
Skammer, what doctrine does Bishop Robinson hold that is contrary to the teachings of the Episcopal Church? If you had said that a week ago, I would have understood you to mean his acceptance of the legitimacy of gay sexuality and gay unions. But that is no longer contrary to the teachings of the Church, given Wednesday’s vote on blessing gay unions. So I’m confused.
“D’oh! They got me with their legal mumbo-jumbo!”[/Homer Simpson]
I guess now I’ll have to start distinguishing between the current Episcopal approach to same-sex unions and traditional Christian teaching about sexuality. The Bishop-elect is right in line with the former but at odds with the latter.