Read it all. Predictably and depressingly she starts by defining the symptomatic issue incorrectly, and then goes on to define the core issue in far too American terms:
So the question the Anglican communion is facing for us all right now is a clear one: What happens to a group, to a church, that stands poised to choose either confusion or tyranny, either anarchy or authoritarianism, either unity or uniformity? Are there really only two choices possible at such a moment? Is there nowhere in-between?
And, forgive me, but I do think the Bible has something to do with it–but that gets no mention.
I agree, Canon Harmon. She frames this in the context of a political discussion and not a spiritual/Biblical one. She also makes the assumption that TEC’s action was “prophetic,” which no one — including the ABC — does.
I find it interesting that Sr. Joan, whose writings usually protest American/Western unilateralism in its dealings with the rest of the world, doesn’t note (or recognize) that aspect in this issue.
The RCC is growing in the Global South (and through immigrants to the West) and will face its own challenges in this regard. However, unless a liberal pope is elected in the future, the authority structure will support the more conservative GS Catholics and lower the boom on the liberals.
The boom was lowered a long time ago, it’s just a question of spending some time in the wilderness.
[blockquote] The major political question of the time was whether or not a Catholic president could really be trusted to lead a government for the good of all the people, Catholic or not, or be expected to take orders from the pope[/blockquote]
I try not to be harsh but this is an idiotic statement. At best it was A political question of the time. It was never THE major one and hardly ever rose to the level of being one of the major ones.
Kendall, thanks for posting Sr. Joan’s reflections which, not surprisingly, I found “spot on.”
I was, however, saddened to see how predictably and depressingly you chose to introduce the piece by presuming to have the authority to define the symptomatic issue “correctly.”
And on it goes.
Is this person describing the Roman Catholic Church??????
In what dimension? What alternate version of history is she talking about?
Rocks, Sr Joan Chittester is a heretic who defies many Church teachings. Unfortunately heresy has found fertile soil in too many religious orders of the Church. But God is not mocked and many of these are not thriving. The orders that remain true to Christ and His Church are growing and attracting those with a mind and heart for Christ not cultural apologists.
Ahhh… Sr. Joan. I owe her a great deal. She (and others of a similar bent) are one of the reasons I am Orthodox now.
Susan, it is clear I am reflecting my own thoughts, but then they are the thoughts of many others.
As Archbishop Rowan Williams has said:
I am sorry if you choose to disagree with Dr. Williams, but perhaps you could take that up with him.
However, unless a liberal pope is elected in the future, the authority structure will support the more conservative GS Catholics and lower the boom on the liberals.
As another commenter has mentioned, the boom has already been lowered, namely the papacies of John Paul II and now Benedict XVI. While some like Sr. Joan see the Catholic Church (and likely the Orthodox) “catching up” with the Anglican communion in liberality, this is not likely. While the 1960s-70s radicals have taken over most of the mainlines (partly because everybody else left), the 70s leftists have had a minimal influence (compared to the mainlines) within the Catholic Church, and the next generations of active Catholics seem unimpressed with the laxity of the previous generation.
Susan Russell writes: “I was, however, saddened to see how predictably and depressingly you chose to introduce the piece by presuming to have the authority to define the symptomatic issue ‘correctly.'”
Speaking of presumption, Susan…
If Kendall were speaking as a lone individual, isolated from the broader Church past and present, and making claims on his own authority, you would have a valid point.
However, Kendall is not speaking as an isolated, lone individual, nor do I hear him claiming his own authority. Rather, he has the weight and authority of 2000 years of consistent testimony and witness of the Church. He also joins hundreds of millions of Christians, past and present, and across culture in defining the symptomatic issue “correctly.”
You, on the other hand, do not.
She misses another point…
[blockquote] “If homosexuality is ‘natural,’ meaning biologically configured at birth, why is it immoral for homosexuals to live in homosexual unions — even if they are bishops? After all, isn’t that what we said — in fact, did — when we argued ‘scientifically’ that blacks were not fit for ordination because blacks weren’t quite as human as whites? And so we kept them out of our seminaries and called ourselves ‘Christian’ for doing it. Without even the grace to blush.” [/blockquote]
The point is that bishops should be elected on their qualifications and abilities to govern, and not elected with the goal of diversity. Is Sister suggesting we have an affirmative action plan in the H.O.B.? This would not be in keeping with the Rule of Benedict, for we read in the Rule:
[blockquote] To be worthy of the task of governing a monastery, the prioress or abbot must always remember what the title signifies and act accordingly. They are believed to hold the place of Christ in the monastery. Therefore, a prioress or abbot must never teach or decree or command anything that would deviate from God’s instructions. On the contrary, everything they teach and command should, like the leaven of divine justice, permeate the minds of the community
Let the prioress and abbot always remember that at the judgment of God, not only their teaching but also the community’s obedience will come under scrutiny. The prioress and abbot must, therefore, be aware that the shepherd will bear the blame wherever the owner of the household finds that the sheep have yielded no profit. Still, if they have faithfully shepherded a restive and disobedient flock, always striving to cure their unhealthy ways, it will be otherwise: the shepherd will be acquitted at God’s judgment. Then, like the prophet, they may say to God: “I have not hidden your justice in my heart; I have proclaimed your truth and your salvation (Ps 40:11) but they spurned and rejected me (Is 1:2; Ez 20:27).” Then at last the sheep that have rebelled against their care will be punished by the overwhelming power of death. [/blockquote]
If our Bishops are to be the equivalent of the Abbot, then let them listen to St. Benedict for the sake of us sheep.
[i]But truth is commitment to what’s under the changes . . . [/i]
OK, so what’s under the changes? You mean, there’s something [i]unchanging[/i] beneath all of the various changes?
Oh, wait, I thought that a commitment to, i.e. an insistence on, something [i]unchanging[/i] was “tyranny.”
Thus is the intellectual incoherence of the liberal catholic (whether of the Roman or Anglican variety) revealed . . .
I should add that Sr Chittester has reduced “authoritarianism” to a buzz word. Apparently any appeal to authority is “authoritarian,” or at least any appeal to it with which she disagrees.
By such means is the much vaunted path of “conversation” rendered pointless.
Don’t worry about ol’ Sister Joan, she’s still all bitter and twisted inside over Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. Must be rough hitching your whole existence to a fantasy, then watching it slowly decompose while you sink deeper and deeper into the delusion. Pray for this poor soul and other like her who’ve been led astray by false teachers.
[i]“If homosexuality is ‘natural,’ meaning biologically configured at birth, why is it immoral for homosexuals to live in homosexual unions—even if they are bishops? [/i]
Diabetes is biologically configured at birth (at least partly), but diabetics still have to avoid certain foods. If the biological genesis of homosexual attraction were proven, which it is not, it still would not ascertain the nature of the condition. That is, is it a trait or a disordered condition?
[i]After all, isn’t that what we said—in fact, did—when we argued ‘scientifically’ that blacks were not fit for ordination because blacks weren’t quite as human as whites? [/i]
Let’s skip the historical oversimplification and move on to the fact that sexual preference isn’t equivalent to race. Thanks be that some black Christians are starting to speak up against this vile comparison.
There’s that crime of certainty, again! It seems to me one has to have a high degree of certainty to make the charge. Sister Joan is certain of who the heroes are, and who the villains. She is certain that homosexuality is “‘natural,’ meaning biologically configured at birth,” and that therefore homosexuals have a moral duty to form homosexual unions (except those with the charism of celibacy).
She does raise a lot of good points. Does anyone reading this blog have an argument with what she says about the immorality of the Church “across the ages”? To be a Christian, and a Christian leader, has not always meant being on the right side of every conflict. And Church leaders “across the ages” have been too quick to brand as “heretics” the pioneers who first came forward with “novel” ideas that we now take for granted.
As we look on while ECUSA does its best to self-destruct, it’s worthwhile to listen to the voices of ecumenical ecumenical observers who feel they have a stake in the well-being of Anglicanism. Not everyone says, “We’ll have Church unity when everyone signs on with my Church.” Lots of people know why they stand in the traditions where they live, but know humbly that their own traditions don’t have a monopoly on the Gospel, and they value the comprehensive Anglican “bridge” role.
Pax Christi!
I have loved Sr. Joan’s writing for quite some time – she is brave & honest in a way that really inspires me.
I found this quote more insightful:
But truth is commitment to what’s under the changes and renewal is what’s devoted to developing a tradition as well as reshaping it. They are not opposites. They are two faces of the same thing and, if we are all to survive together, we must learn to respect one another until the dawn comes and the light shines.
It is truly sad that all “sides” overlook how much they are faces of the same thing.
Ah, Sister Joan Chittister (and Susan Russell for that matter)…still spinning the same old chit.
RE: “I was, however, saddened to see how predictably and depressingly you chose to introduce the piece by presuming to have the authority to define the symptomatic issue “correctly.â€
Heh.
Yeh, Kendall. How dare you express your beliefs on your blog.
Please stop it. . . . People are reading you. ; > )
I have heard many people juxtapose the ‘tradition’ as an antithesis to the ‘prophetic’ with respect to this particular issue. However, the biblical understanding of prophetic seems to be a call to return tot he roots, to return to faithfulness, to live out the call of GOd in a way that is faithful to the tradition–not a ‘new truth that the Spirit of God is saying’ but to live into the old truths.
Sorry, but I don’t think that ‘prophetic’ applies in this situation at all.
Neal in Dallas,
How would you characterize the voices within the Church who spoke to the injustice of slavery ? Who argued for women to be treated as something other than property ?
If this issue is one of Scriptural interpretation, rather than Bob Duncan or Gene Robinson, rather the tension of tradition and prophetic seems at the core of what the Church has been arguing since Peter & Paul disagreed on table fellowship.
Bob,
those voices who spoke out against slavery and for women to be equal to men were speaking from within the Tradition. Paul urged Philemon to free Onesimus. Paul also said “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female.” So, the red herrings of slavery or treatment of women were corrected by prophetic voices from within the tradition. This new, schismatic, action by TECUSA speaks from outside the tradition. I’ve asked before and I’ll ask until I get an answer or you indicate that there is no answer. Can you show me, from within the Apostles’ teaching, where homosexual sex is spoken of in any terms except that it is sinful?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
#20, what does slavery have to do with this current issue of blessing homosexual relationships? There is no logical connection between the two topics.
Bob,
How would you characterize the voices that spoke of the impossibility of women entering the kingdom of heaven (Gnostics)? Of the sinfulness of marriage (Albigensians)? Of the illegitimacy of all property and all government (various)?
If you refute them from Scripture, then where, in Scripture, do you find the grounds to reject these but also to support the gay agenda?
[i]How would you characterize the voices within the Church who spoke to the injustice of slavery ? Who argued for women to be treated as something other than property ? [/i]
Saying this sort of thing over and over will not make sexual preference the same sort of thing as race or gender. They are not.
The Bible???Does anyone really expect [Sr. Joan] to care one whit about what the word of God says?? Why Rome hasn’t shown her the door and eliminated her “bully pulpit” as a purported nun is beyond me. Maybe it is because the way the media would turn her into St. Joan the martyred makes it not worth the fight.
[i]-edited, elves[/i]
Phil,
Can you really believe that the voices that spoke out initially for abolition or for women in ministry were from within the tradition ? You know that for decades these folks were way on the margin – it was only at the end that the tradition & the margin met.
#25
why is that someone holding an opposing POV has their vocation – “purported nun” questioned ?
Bob (#26)
I was initially going to ask you to respond to my question before I answered yours. But you don’t seem to understand how dialogue works. We ask each other questions and we answer the questions asked. Let me show you how to answer a question. You asked: “Can you really believe that the voices that spoke out initially for abolition or for women in ministry were from within the tradition ?(sic)”
Yes. I do believe that abolotionists and those who supported the seeing women as something other than chatel spoke from within the tradition. Others may not have recognized it at the time, but they were still grounded within the tradition. They made their arguments from scripture and from the teaching of the Apostles and their followers. Their arguments may not have been persuasive at the time, but they were still arguments grounded in scripture. So, please show me where scripture speaks of homosexual sex in any terms other than “sinful.” Show me where the Apostles provide for live long same sex unions or where Jesus overturns the Torah pronouncements on homosexual sex. Can you show where the Didache speaks of homosexual sex in positive terms? How about Clement or Augustine or Aquinas. Somebody, anybody within the tradition will do. Show me at least one respected source that proclaims the moral teaching of the church to be wrong.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Phil, The sarcasm is really un-necessary.
The term homosexuality as we understand that word today appears nowhere in Scripture. In fact, the word was not coined until the nineteenth century. Moreover, there is no evidence that the Scripture addresses the matter of sexual orientation as that characteristic is now understood. In Scripture the attention is given to same-sex practices. It is a minor concern and appears in only five passages.
There are so many folks within the tradition – respected by many – who see the Church responding to an understanding of homosexuality as an orientation, rather than a preference. For example:
Judaism’s liberal Reform and Reconstructionist branches, United Church of Christ, the Methodist Church of Great Britain, the Moravian Church, the United Church of Canada, Friends General Conference
theologians like Ralph W. Klein, Barbara R. Rossing, Alton Pollard, Robin Scroggs, Stanley Grenz
Within the early church, there was Adelphopoiesis, a Christian rite for uniting two persons of the same sex as brothers or sisters, amounted to an approved outlet for romantic and indeed sexual love between couples of the same sex.
#7 — Thanks, Kendall. Actually, I have.
Blessings, Susan
Leaving women aside for the moment (since that subject inevitably brings up A Certain Issue that many may not want to get into here), the obvious difference between slavery and homosexuality is that, in biblical terms (which not coincidentally are the very terms Sr Chittester conspicuously avoids), the former is an argument over justice based on an institution created [i]after[/i] the Fall while the latter is rooted in arguments over the very nature of humanity as created [i]before[/i] the Fall. Thus St Paul could see slavery as merely an institution of this world concerning which he had little to say (though none of it good), but put homosexuality in the context of idolatry.
Not surprisingly, SSU advocates try to treat the latter as really a case of the former, and argue that the texts of Genesis as they have been traditionally understood do not apply to partnered samed-sex relationships. It just won’t wash, though.
well, to answer Sister Joan’s question and to make a point to Ms. Russell as well, the “in between” was for Susan Russell and myself to hold different beliefs about gay behavior in the same church with the church as a whole not choosing to reject mine, or agree with hers.
Susan, you and your church have chosen to remedy the discrimination you have experienced in life by discriminating against those who do not agree with you. The consequences of that choice become increasingly clear with those who have eyes to see. So be it.
#28, Bob says:
The term homosexuality as we understand that word today appears nowhere in Scripture. In fact, the word was not coined until the nineteenth century. Moreover, there is no evidence that the Scripture addresses the matter of sexual orientation as that characteristic is now understood. In Scripture the attention is given to same-sex practices.”
This seems to be the main talking point for those who are re-interpreting the Scriptures. No offense intended, but it’s too absurd to be believed. Just because a new term has been coined and can’t be found in the Bible doesn’t mean its meaning never existed in the Bible. Orientation has surely been understood as long as men could think intelligently. Genetics is the only thing that has recently come under scrutiny, and has yet to be determined as a factor. Even if it were to be concluded that genetics determines sexual orientation, that means nothing to those of us who believe the Scriptures speak clearly to what we are called to do and not do. For some it may indeed be a more difficult task.
Hello, Bob. Welcome back to Texas.
I’ll not repeat Phil Snyder’s comments, which approximate what I would have said. Only a few incidental comments.
1. If you’re going to argue from silence as to there being no word for homosexuality in the Greek, I think you’re on fairly thin ice. What is Romans 1 referring to? If you say that Jesus did not mention homosexuality, I would argue, “Of course not. Jesus was a faithful Jew. If he had any sort of opposition to or disapproval of homosexual acts, it would have been recorded somewhere in the Gospels. And, of course, the scriptures do not address homosexuality as an orientation; rather it condemns homosexual acts.
2. Minor because it appears in only five passages? How many passages specifically mention the Lord’s Supper and directions for its ministration? Why do we have the washing of the feet when it is mentioned only once? How many references are there to deacons? Maybe we should do away with deacons because they are mentioned only in Acts and 2 Timothy? (Sorry, Phil, it’s an argument for emphasis; I’m not really suggesting that we do away with deacons.)
3. John Bosworth’s speculation about Adelphopoiesis is simply that: speculation. It is not really accepted by most scholars and seems rather unlikely given the historical and traditional prohibitions against homosexual acts.
There is no really convincing argument–nor any groundswell of people arguing that approval of homosexual acts was ever really a part of the early church–that the prophetic voices callig for the acceptance of homosexual expression of human sexuality are truly calling the Church to fidelity within the tradition. The vast majority of those who would call themselves ‘traditionalists,’ namely, the Orthodox and Roman Catholics and Anglicans (not to mention Evangelicals, Pentecostals, and Charismatics) all seem fairly united in believing that they are heirs of the tradition.
I think you know me well enough, Bob, to recognize that I don’t spend any of my time arguing about homosexuality. I subscribe to a fairly traditional view of homosexual practices in the normally accepted use of that term. Now, I have typed more words oon this topic than I have written in YEARS, if ever, on this subject; but you called me out (I don’t mean that pejoratively), so there you go.
Finally, let me say that I acknowledge the difference between homosexuality and homosexual orientation.
Fire away.
Blessings, Neal
Bob,
I apologize for the sarcasm. It was wrong and I new as soon as I had hit “submit” that I should have rewritten it. Thank you for your courteous reply.
I am not a Greek scholar, but if I concede that the Greek NT does not discuss homsexual orientation, will you concede that it does discuss homosexual sex? The argument is not about orientation, but about actions and whether homosexual sex is sinful or not. As for the scholars you mentioned, I notieced that they were all current scholars. Don’t you have a scripture citation or quote from the sub-apostolic age? How about from the Ante-Nicean, Nicean, or Post-Nicean fathers? See, modern scholars who speak against the Tradition are not speaking out of the tradition. Can you show me something out of the universally received tradition that supports blessing homosexual sex?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
p.s. Neal, I’m surprised that you forgot Philippians where Paul mentions Bishops and Deacons, but not presbyters – must be some form of mental block there! 🙂 (just kidding in case the smiley doesn’t make it)
[i]Within the early church, there was Adelphopoiesis, a Christian rite for uniting two persons of the same sex as brothers or sisters, amounted to an approved outlet for romantic and indeed sexual love between couples of the same sex.[/i]
It is hard to take seriously someone who invokes a work that has been so thoroughly debunked, over a dozen years ago, in a journal (The New Republic) that would seem otherwise sympathetic to the case and by a writer who is himself homosexual. See
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/bosrev-shaw.html
Thanks for the apology, Phil.
In terms of the definition of who is speaking from tradition, it strikes me that this is a form of privilege.
Neal, thanks for the considered reply. This is a struggle – and it should be. Bob Duncan is convinced his speaks w/in tradition – Jeffrey Johns is just as convinced. The nice things is that it is not ours to decide – and from my understanding of salcvation, it has little to do with our eternal rest.
I do still struggle with the tension of tradition and prophetic, which seems at the core of what the Church has been arguing since Peter & Paul disagreed on table fellowship.
[i]Susan, you and your church have chosen to remedy the discrimination you have experienced in life by discriminating against those who do not agree with you. The consequences of that choice become increasingly clear with those who have eyes to see. So be it.[/i]
I beg to differ. There is an ontological difference between feeling discriminated against because you’re disagreed with and being discriminated against because of who you are. No one in “my church” has made the criteria for our inclusion the exclusion of somebody else. The problem is we can live with you — but you’re not willing to live with us (unless we “change” — “repent” — “comply” — “conform” — “whatever”). So be it.
I’m pretty sure that anything Joan Chittister says we need, we really don’t. So, you know… take that as you will.
When people throw out the “Genetics trumps Tradition” argument, I like to point people right back to the gospel. John 9, I believe, and we’ll see if being born a certain way is license to remain so.
[blockquote]As he passed by, he saw a man blind from his birth.
And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”
Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, [b]but that the works of God might be made manifest in him[/b].
We must work the works of him who sent me, while it is day; night comes, when no one can work.
As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”[/blockquote]
Notice that Jesus did not say “He’s fine the way he is, and is even blessed so, for his blindness pleases Me.” The beggar was blind to show the healing power of Christ. Either you can believe that Jesus can heal you of a disordered inclination, or you do not.
Bob,
Given that you have not yet offered anything from the universally received tradition that supports blessing same sex unions, I will have to assume that no such teaching exists. See, it has just been in the last 50 or so years that some have considered homosexual sex to be “good” rather than sinful. Doesn’t it strike you as arrogant to place 50 years of consideration against 3000 years of teaching? I know you will bring up the red herrings of slavery and the place of women, but again, I will point to the scriptures that showed we were being more true to the will of God by abolishing slavery and treating women as having equal worth to men. Since nothing in scripture or the universally received tradition point to what you suggest, then don’t you think it is worth saving the Anglican Communion and backing off of your innovation until the Communion comes to a different mind? If, as you say, this is a movement of the Holy Spirit, then it will continue to move forward. However, if it is not, then waiting to make the change will make that evident as well.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Let us suppose for a minute that science really does locate a set of “homosxual” genes. Does this (a) mean that all homosexual practices are genetic and (b) what difference does this make, given the scriptural rejection of homosexual practice?
As to (a) it is obvious that there is such a thing as circumstantial homosexual practice, e.g., in prisons, and in the old Navy when men were isolated from women for a long time. The sheer hunger for sex will drive sequestered men into homosexual practices regardless of their genetic makeup. The problem in prisons makes this very clear.
As to (b), let us suppose that arson is genetic, the result of a genetic peculiarity that ties sex with fire. Would we find arson defensible and would we refuse to punish those who practice arson? Heterosexual men are geneticially predisposed to mate with any female who will admit them. This is why there are so many prostitutes and why business is so good. What then? Shall we sanction promiscuity and give prostitution a green light because it is serving what genetically cannot be denied?
But another step, let us suppose that right thought and right behavior also have genetic roots. After all, there must be a genetic basis for our continuing predisposition for social cooperation, and for our unassuageable hunger for religion. What then? Which genetics will trump which? In short, genetics can never trump anything as variable as tradition and obviously must never be allowed to trump scripture. Larry
Susan, even though we are archived already, I did want to write back and thank you for your response, even though its very disappointing. May I ask you to read the first paragraph of my post again? Surely you of all people know that this is far more than an agreement to disagree. You and I “agreed to disagree” before GC 2003 when we were both in the same church; after GC 2003 it became more than mere disagreement when your position assumed ascendency and became the doctrine of your church. (I say “your church” because I am no longer with you.)
My point regarding discrimination still holds because of the power differential between your position and mine, at least in TEC, represented by the consecration of Gene Robinson, the consent to SSB’s, and the refusal of your church to accede to any of the Primate’s requests. Once you had the power to install your agenda, knowing full well it would “rend the fabric of the COmmunion apart,” as you were warned, you did it anyway. Its not merely “feeling discriminated against” when you deliberately make a decision that you know will cause me to leave, when you had the option NOT to make the decision. To use a very crude analogy, your position is like saying, I put poison in the food, you chose not to eat it, I didn’t exclude you! So yes, you have made the criteria for inclusion the exclusion of others, once you go beyond the agreement to disagree to installing your beliefs as doctrine of the church. Moreover, you are wrong again in your statement that I am unwilling to “live with you” unless you repent; I did, for many many years. It was only when you decided to make your beliefs doctrine of TEC that my hand was forced. When you say “the problem is we can live with you but you are not willing to live with us,” that is so dishonest Susan, because you saying, “we can live with you as long as you adhere to our doctrine whether you agree with it or not.”
I would also like to ask you a very direct question: why is being gay “who you are,” but what I believe as a Christian “not who I am,” in your view of ontology?
Finally, I would caution you against the triumphalism inherent in throwing my “so be it” back in my face in the conclusion of your post. I really think that over time you will realize what you are losing with all this is not worth what you are gaining.
Phil,
This is not anything approaching dialogue. I appreciate that the construct you’ve described is useful for you. From my understanding of how the church has functioned, it is not a consistent criteria for balancing change and tradition.
Two phrases in your comment struck me as part of a script:
backing off of your innovation
If, as you say, this is a movement of the Holy Spirit
I do not think I’ve ever used those terms – recycling them from other conversations seems like a very non-productive way to engage.
#43 – Maybe he’s not recycling, maybe that’s just the way he interprets what the left is saying.
Hi Bob.
I don’t understand how my construct is not consistent. Can you show me my inconsistency? Am I making false or misleading statements on the use of scripture for ending slavery or advancing the equality of women? Am I making false or misleading statement from Scripture concerning the morality of sexual expression? If so, I need to be show where I am in error so I can repent (and I mean that seriously, not sarcastically – if I am in error, then I need to repent and rethink my positions).
Also, the “you” and “your” were intended to be second person plural as in those who support the blessing of SSU and ordaining men or women involved in homosexual sex. You may not have used the term “movement of the Holy Spirit” but ISTM that you accept that the Holy Spirit is leading the church to bless SSUs. Perhaps you don’t, but then your position would be very confusing to me.
Regarding balancing change and tradition, we are free to change (within limits) how we express the faith – the “things adiaphora.” We can change such things as how we organize dioceses, how we raise money, how we select bishops, what we wear, the music we use, and the style of architecture for our worship buildings (or the existence of such buildings). However we are not free to change the essence of the faith. I submit that moral teaching is of the essence of the faith and any new understanding of it needs to be grounded within the Apostles’ teaching and not break the Apostles’ fellowship. This new innovation of calling homosexual sex “blessed” is not found anywhere in the Apostles’ tradition and it is breaking the Apostles’ fellowship. If it is a better expression of the will of God, then that will become evident to more than just a few people in world wide Christianity. Right now, it seems that the fruit of this change is schism, anger, pain, and a willingness to move the vast wealth of TECUSA from TECUSA to trial lawyers.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder