Unless we as the conservative church are willing to admit that we have sometimes (often?) failed in the call of the Lambeth ”˜98 resolution to listen to the experience of gay and lesbian people (and post-gay and post-lesbian, for the conservative church is still shockingly ignorant in how to deal pastorally in this area) then we have no right to ask those whom we disagree with to take such resolutions seriously themselves. What we need at this point then is a serious, critical self-examination. Can we truly say that in all cases we are the ones sinned against? Can we really stand clean in front of the Lord and argue that we have not ourselves sinned in this conflict?
[Anybody who knows Rowan Williams knows that his style of leadership is to suggest what the path might be and then to step back and let those on the ground decide whether that is the path that want to take. While many might think that such an approach lacks the firm hand that is needed right now, it is right to applaud Rowan for his unwillingness to attempt to impose a solution on the Communion that will simply be rejected. If the Spirit is at work amongst us (and He is), then he doesn’t need to do that – we will all, on genuine, heart-searching reflection come to the mind of Christ.]
That’s cute: it’s not leadership. Imagine your doctor saying, “Perhaps we could continue to meet, talk, and exchange opinions on your massive tumor. Surgery is so severe, so dangerous. I just want us all to be in agreement.” Or, your pilot, “I am just a man, like you. I want us all to continue our conversation on this journey, trusting in the common Spirit good to get us where we need to go.” Dr. Williams, make a decision, act on it, or get out of the way and let someone else lead.
The crucial question is whether we have intentionally failed to listen. Who can say that they have been infallible in doing anything that they have agreed to do? Sin infects us all, and all our good intentions. I may desire to love my neighbor, but do I do a good job of it? Hell no! But that fact doesn’t mean that I am not serious about the call to love one another. If we have failed to love pastorally enough, if we have fallen from the standard of perfection that Jesus calls us to, then the answer is to simply confess and repent. It is not to say that our failing nullifies our call on others to strive toward perfection in other areas.
The argument that David seems to be laying himself open to is one that says that unless we are perfect in our love for sinners then we can’t call them to repentance.
If we truly believe that the Spirit was at work in the Ecumenical Councils of the first millenium, then we have to see these violations of the Nicene principle of diocesan integrity as serious breaches of catholicity.
There is no “Nicene principle of diocesan integrity” when the bishop of said diocese is a heretic. The structures of episcopal authority are not indepenmdent of or antecedent to the maintanace of orthodoxy in the church. They are premised upon just that common orthodoxy and are a testament to it. When a bishop goes univited into another bishop’s diocese it is an implicit declaration that he is no longer in proper fellowship with him. But that is precisely what the Conservative Primates have been declaring about TEC and ACoC. They are not answering sin with sin. They are being intellectually honest and faithful to their church to guard the faith.
oops, I didn’t note that the author is Peter not David Ould. I was wondering why he seemed to be speaking so very differently. :-/
I can’t urge everyone enough to take the opportunity on this thread to read the whole piece slowly and carefully, and to do so with the specific invitation Kendall gave us: reading it as a spur for self-criticism and criticism of the reasserter movement as a whole.
We have all had many opportunities to criticize reappraisers and the regnant party in TEC, their pronouncements, their behavior, their arguments. That’s what most T19 threads are. That’s not in itself a bad thing. It’s great that T19 gives a place to do that. But I can’t emphasize enough how valuable it would be to let this thread (if nowhere else at T19) be a place to humbly reflect on what we reasserters are doing that is wrong or unhelpful.
I say this as a traditionalist who is on record as opposing VGR’s ordination and SSBs as early as spring 2003.
I have responded to Ould’s post here.
[blockquote]The argument that [Peter] seems to be laying himself open to is one that says that unless we are perfect in our love for sinners then we can’t call them to repentance.[/blockquote]
Not a million miles from something Our Lord said, Chris… (Luke 6:41-42).
This really is an excellent article. The call to consider our own actions, no matter how “justified” from a secular perspective, is one we should always be alert to.
I’m weeping and I’m at work — this is problematic…
Alan, my problem with the oft cited section c of Lambeth 1998’s Resolution 1.10, to “listen”, is that it is not at all equal to the other parts, just as it is a false equation that puts border crossing on the same level as gay ordinations and SSBs. Section b and e proscribe clearly definable acts. Section c prescribes something which is not at all clear in its definition. What precisely does it mean to “listen”?
How many times have you had an argument with someone who says “you’re not listening to me”? Does this mean that you weren’t listening? Or does it mean that you weren’t agreeing and that they were assuming that their arguments were so self evidently true that you would have had to agree if you listened to them. I know such presumptions are common because I have been guilty of them myself. Knowing whether someone is listening is not so easy to know or define It is possible to reasonably decide that someone isn’t listening to this or that idea if they then repeat it to you in a distorted form. But that has to be demonstrated. You can’t simply accuse the other of not listening.
Furthermore, how many times is listening required? Do we have to hear the same tired anecdotes and distorted reasoning again and again? Since when is this kind of pastoral indulgence a Biblical requirement? Shouldn’t the church be able to say, “We’ve heard you. Now hear us. Repent.”?
Lastly, and most importantly, who gets to define whether listening has or has not occured?
Not a million miles from something Our Lord said, Chris… (Luke 6:41-42).
Peter Ould, in an incredible act of charity, speaks the truth here without giving up his reasserter convictions. Here is why I know him to be right in most if not every case.
What I am going to say is not something I have ever shared fully with another in my life besides my confessor. My experience incarnates Peter’s argument.
In short, less painful form, here is what happened:
1.) after recognizing since about the second grade that I was attracted to other boys and not girls I tried to hide this and to fit in.
2.) as I grew older it became apparant to my peers that I was different and they recognized my homosexuality (soft spoken, no interest in sports, bookish, high-pitched voice, certain effiminate mannerisms, did not like to disrobe in gymn, and no interest in “getting girls”)
3.) By high-school I was bullied, teased, humiliated and sometimes beat up, slapped in the hallways, had cruel jokes played on me, etc. I had so much fear and anxiety that at 16 I began to pull the hear out of the top of my head creating a bald spot and adding the nick-name bald-eagle to my daily assaults. No teacher or authority figure ever came to my assistance and some coaches joined in on the teasing during gymn class.
4.) All the while I had been a devout Roman Catholic: served on the altar, joined the Blue Army (a Marian Society), went to adult prayer groups and bible studies at my church, started a nursing home ministry, attended mass almost daily, frequently went to confession. All the while praying, begging, saying novenas, offering my masses to be made normal and to be attracted to girls. The church was the one place I felt love and connection to the divine. I loved helping people and especially working with little children and the elderly. I used to give tours to the parish pre-school where I would take them through the church and the sacristy and explain what everything meant, the symbolism and the use of all the holy hardware. I wanted to serve God in the church but I knew they would never permit it if they found out about my same-sex attraction. I also worked Friday nights as a volunteer at the children’s hospital emergency room. At this point I had never had any kind of sexual experience.
5.) I got kicked out of the house at 17 because I had died a small lock of my bangs blond. My parents were FURIOUS and said this is what gay people did and my father would not have a gay son in his house. My mom was too afraid to challenge him. I was permitted to pack my bags and take my car and my mom gave me $250.00 dollars.
6.) Somehoe I had learned where gay people lived (California of course!) and so I drove to Hollywood. I rented a room in a residental motel off of Santa Monica Blvd. all of whose residents were prostitutes (gay, straight, transexuals, etc), drug dealers and addicts and people with severe mental illness who had no place else to go.
7.) For three years I survived by walking up and down the street at night and selling my body. I began to drink heavily and use drugs to numb the pain. I would still slink into Catholic churches to light a candle and to hear mass but never recieved the sacrament. I hated myself and I wanted to die.
8.) there was a free gay newspaper at the gay community center that had an outreach to homeless gay youth. I would go there for food, clothes, and other social services. While waiting to see my caseworker I was reading the gay paper. There were churches listed in a section that welcomed gays. I began to visit them all. When I got to the Episcopal Church I knew I had come Home. I asked to meet with the Pastor for confession and I poured out my heart and my sins to him. He gave me absolution and promised to help get me out of “the life” I was in.
9.) long story short he did! the whole congregation wrapped their arms around me. They gave me a safe place to live with a same sex lesbian couple, they helped me find a real job, the Pastor met with me for pastoral counseling and they showed me how to be a holy homosexual. I hadn’t ever realized such a way of life existed. I met couples who had been together for 5, 10, 15, 20, 30+ years who were devoted to God, the church and living for Jesus and not the bars.
10.) I experienced healing in their midst. I was recieved into the Episcopal Church. From there I studied everything and discovered anglo-catholicism. I moved went to a Catholic College, attended an anglo-catholic parish and worked in a Catholic bookstore. I loved patristics, church history and liturgy. I got pneumonia during my third year, went to the doctor and tested positive for HIV. Further tests showed I had already advanced to AIDS. I was an aspirant with the SSJE, hoping to consecrate my life to God in the religious life. I was too ashamed to tell them about my condition and so I withdrew from the process.
11.) I found hoipe, healing, support and strength for the journey in glbt friendly episcopal churches. They saved my life and my soul. Now, I am in my thiors year at an evangelical seminary. I work in hospice ministry, I am a novice in one of the disperesed Christian Communities in TEC, I am a Youth Director and a hospice chaplain intern. I am an orthodox Christian who believes every word of the creed without reservation. I am not a liberal gay activist. I have a partner of four+ years and together we seek to liove a godly life pleasing to Christ and to one day have our own small hospice, with a chapel and beautiful gardens and a small shrine to the Holy Angels.
12.) I have been to many of the larger reasserting churches in the south (where I live) and I can tell you they have no love fore gays and nothing in the way of ministry to and for them happenning inside their doors..not even support groups that promote chastity. They don’t want us there. If I were to share my story in a fellowship or lifegroup in one of those churches the level of discomfort those good folk would feel would be palpable. I’ve tested the waters so I know. I also know they are good people who love Jesus and TEC. They are afraid of raging liberals destroying the church and so am I. The Susan Russells of TEC do not represent me in any way outside of their full support fore glbt people. Homosexuals, like all others, need toi be welcomed and called to a life of holiness, orthodoxy and devotion. But I am convinced that where I have been and where I am now can be largely attributed to gay friendly churches who welcomed me in, cleaned me up from the inside out and set me firmly on the path of Life with my partner holding my hand.
13.) For this reason I will stand firm of my support to the glbt lobby in TEC. They saved my life and I intend to return the favor. My question is this: What would your church do if a teen-aged homosexual prostitute showed up in your church nexty Sunday? Do you even care that there are thousands of them in the streets? Do you not recognize that many of the reappraising churches have shown us a different way to live?
Jesus Christ be praised and in my life be glorified today.
Re: Listening
I think I agree with Chris though I think Peter’s point is well worth pondering. However, once again we are looking at a problem of perspective: Let us say, for example, I have a friend who really has a hard time with gossiping and it has gotten her into a great deal of trouble. Because of this problem, she has suffered broken friendships and isolation – been in a great deal of pain. Peter would state just telling her “You need to knock of gossiping – it’s a sin” is inadequate – and I would agree with that. Part of truly loving and helping someone is realizing that “there but by the Grace of God go I” and having empathy. However, if this is all I do for my friend, then it is ultimately meaningless – I love and understand her, but also need to call her to a higher standard and help her overcome this sin. That is what is in her best interest.
Re: [blockquote] GAFCON and the Global South should call an immediate moratorium on border-crossing. Yes, that will be painful for many. It will explicitly involve the dying to self that I spoke about above, for in the short term it will leave many abused and attacked in liberal dioceses, believing that they have been abandoned by those who said they would provide rescue. It would also implicitly involve confessing that the act of crossing diocesan boundaries was wrong, for we there would be no need to have a moratorium if crossing boundaries was seen by all as acceptable.[/blockquote]
Peter, I don’t know where you are or what your status is – but for those of us who have crawled, prayerfully, and sadly out of TEC – for those of us who lost friends & church & reputation in order to stand for the Gospel, for those of us who felt lost, alone, and totally friendless while wanting to remain Anglicans – the kindness of Primates, such as Orombi – cannot be expressed.
To suggest that he abandon us – and we abandon him – is like asking us to willingly return to prison. I talked to my husband about that last night and we both agreed that not only would we abandon Anglicanism if this happened, our entire congregation would denigrate after such an action – and I highly suspect that would happen across the nation for all of us who have been rescued from TEC.
In short, it’s not an option – especially when you are in a revisionist diocese with a bishop who is duplicitous – who has spent most of his spare time either undermining you or maligning you – even though you took nothing – not even one prayerbook from his diocese.
Sorry, that is cold reality.
archangelica :
I am so glad that God intervened in your life and helped you. That is a wonderful thing. I also am glad that you have shared your story here – it reinforces the need we have as Christians to love and respect everyone in the community.
We have gay people in our community (church and city) and we love them and accept them. “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” – that applies for everyone in the room – we are all on the same playing field. ALL of us need to be redeemed and ALL of us need healing from sin. So, do not assume just because people believe in the Authority of Scripture, that must mean that they will not accept you.
I hope God continues to draw you into the Presence of His Son and continues to form you into His Image.
#11, Archangelica, I commend you for your courage in letting all of that out to this blog. Your young life mirrors mistreatment of many young persons, whom we all knew, growing up. I thank the Lord you found churches that helped you come out of the lifestyle you were in and I pray that you may reconcile with your parents. You have described some rather stereotypical situations and attributed them to Southern churches. I attend a large TEC Southern church and know many others. Your statements simply do not square with the ones I know. Yes, there may not be programs specifically for homosexual persons in many of those churches, but there are very few homosexual persons in those churches, and often they are not even out. But to say the people “have no love for gays” may say more about your inner self than those people. The people in my parish simply have love for people, regardless. We have homosexual people in my parish, but they are just people. They don’t define themselves as gay or straight or lesbian. We are all just people. I think until we all get to this point, we shall continue to have problems.
314 Billy
You are right in that I did stereotype a whole group of churches that I don’t know well enough to speak for. I am sorry. I guess I think they are filled with many people like those who post on this blog, with several stunning exceptions, who seem to say that they desire no place in their churches gor gays nor any desire for those like me to be involved unless we are quiet, celibate and blend in. You are right Billy, there are churches where they are a great diversity of folk in the pews who are looked at as just different kinds of people all welcomed into the transforming life of Christ and called to live holy lives while caryying their own crosses. Mea culpa.
#11… Thanks so much for being willing to share with us what you have told few others. Yours is a life of great suffering and for that I hope we can all have great compassion and gentleness.
I agree that Reasserters often come off (and no doubt in many cases are truly) as smug and cruel and full of condemnation — when what a person like you needs is to be loved by us and listened to. We are full of pat answers (“just say no”, etc.) and unwilling to just listen lovingly in silence without immediately jumping to a need to fix you and or get you to Fly Right.
I wonder whether it is precisely because we have so failed in this respect that you might feel driven to the other side of the isle — which lobby as you know demands not only to be listened to lovingly by Christians who are full aware of their own besetting and recidivistic sins, but demands also that church teaching regarding sin be changed. It was encouraging to me that you should speak so critically of the other side of the isle (“[Reasserters] are afraid of raging liberals destroying the church and so am I.”) It was also encouraging to me that you showed such sensitive insight into the legitimate fears and concerns of reasserters.
Again many thanks and my prayers for you…
Kendall and archangelica–I have hesitated to send this because of Kendall’s admonishment, but I have decided to do so because I believe my experience is representative of the true evangelicals who have tried to remain in TEC. The thought expressed by Ould is laudable, in a Christian sense. But at some level it misses the mark. It assumes the politically correct–I am white, therefore I hate blacks; I am straight, therefore I hate gays; I claim to be an orthodox Christian, therefore I don’t want to listen to the experience of gays and lesbians. I have many, many, many sins to repent of. Hating gays is not one of them. The problem with this article is the problem with TEC. It assumes the answer before it asks the question. As far as arch’s point about ministry to gays, I agree. In our vestry, the SUPPORTERS of VGR voted down my sugestion that we have a ministry for gays and all the reasserters voted for it. The liberals refused to have an active Hispanic ministry and the reasserters all voted for it. The liberals refused to agree to a clearing house for homeless and jobless on the church property. Then the Rector fired me as head of Evangelism. Most Episcopalians don’t want any controversy. They don’t want to deal with the turmoil in TEC but they also don’t take the Gospel imperatives seriously. The point is this: Simply because I listen and care without agreeing, simply because a close relaitive “came out” does not mean I love them less. But the listening process in TEC will only be deemed successful if I change my theology, not my love.
Archangelica, I truly appreciate your testimony. We are all broken and sinners, and it is the sin of the church to not not love the sinner as Christ does. But this sin often flows from hypocrisy and self-deceit, from defining down holiness until we feel comfortable. The answer lies not in continuing the degraded definition until more people are comfortable, for such comfort is deadly.
True, perfect holiness is rare if not impossible this side of the resurrection when Christ will give us bodies free from all sin. Until then the best we can do is seek a life that leads to holiness. While you felt love from a gay church, the true love of God isn’t satisfied with getting sinners half way into holiness. You may have been delivered from an imediatelt self destructive life but they have left you with something that could be much worse: the notion that something could be holy which God thinks is unholy and spiritually destructive. We all sin, and I think the idea that one is free from sin may be the most destructive idea one can hold. Second to that may well be that a particular sin is not really a sin. If we say that of any sin we commit we are embracing what God wants us to put away and that becomes a real block to the Holy Spirit increasing holiness in us.
Reading the lives of the saints I am struck by how aware they are of their sins. True holiness, it seems lies in being able to see our sin for what it is and repent without reservation and trust utterly on God to make us holy. A hard thing. False holiness is much easier and more tempting. It is to declare ourselves good or our brokeness good.
I prefer not to think that God will cast sinners into hell but rather that He will cast our sin into hell. But if we refuse to let go of it, then it will carry us with it.
How am I helping someone if I ‘listen’ to their story of self-destruction and then offer them a ‘safe’ place to continue their life of self-destruction? Archangelica himself tosses out the phrase ‘transforming life of Christ,’ which is the exact opposite: Christ does not offer a safe place to rest in ourselves, but an experience of death to self and resurrection to a new life. It ain’t pretty, and it ain’t sweet, and it ain’t fuzzy feeling. But that’s the gospel of the Bible. If you don’t like that, fine, leave the ‘church’ universal and find other like-minded people. But don’t attempt to redefine Christian Orthodoxy.
David said, “Most Episcopalians don’t want any controversy. They don’t want to deal with the turmoil in TEC but they also don’t take the Gospel imperatives seriously. ”
I’m hoping that you intended this as an example of the sort of mindless rhetoric you complained of earlier, for example “I am white, therefore I hate blacks; I am straight, therefore I hate gays; I claim to be an orthodox Christian, therefore I don’t want to listen to the experience of gays and lesbians.” If not, then I’d say you need to consider dealing with the plank in your own eye as soon as you can!
I find it hard to disagree with Mr. Ould. I have known several celibate gay men. They have made a deep committment to not acting on same-sex attractions and are not practicing homosexuals like VGR. Yet, several that I have spoke to have felt completely unwelcomed, even unloved in reasserting, orthodox parishes. They have been made fun of because they are “effeminate” as if that is prohibited in scripture. Of because of how they walk or talk or other non-sexual traits. Its almost like some churches are saying your level of masculinity might be itself sin, not sexual brokenness, and we don’t want “your kind” of people in here. So, the sense one gets if you experience same sex attractions, is that you are not welcome in that church if you have the attractions. KEndall and Rowan both refuted that earlier saying the “issue” is not pastoral care, but blessing it and elevating those to leadership. And, I praise Kendall and Rowan for saying it. But, the experience on the ground for many who suffer from same sex attractions is the opposite. And I don’t think enough reasserting parishes have done enough to confront this. I have heard “gay slurs” made by long time parishioners toward a “gay acting” visitor, as if you know their sexual practices. If they are committed to celibacy, would they ever return to such a parish? Not likely. Would they get a sense that true “listening” would be part of any such dialogue? Not likely.
Of course, there are those who experience rejection, long before they have engaged in sex, perhaps like archangelica, and find a glbt friendly parish and embrace it, and also find a partner and have sex. But there are also those who had similar experiences in youth, and have embraced celibacy and continue to be ostracised, which says to me the issue for many is not the scriptural passages, but the level of masculinity/feminity one can tolerate and deviations from these norms that really bother them. And, BTW, this is a bigger problem than Anglicans. For decades, perhaps centuries, one has heard “whispers” and even more vile comments directed at Roman Catholic priests who act effeminate. I have a close friend who is RC and one of her priests was rather effeminate and he was perpetually made fun of, and not just by the teenage boys either.
#21
What you describe has been my own experience in churches again and again. I am attracted too and prefer solid, orthodox, conservative congregations but I don’t fit in and because my level of masculinity is less than the other men I am suspect. This is so true!!!
Also, let me clarify in regards to another post. I in NO SENSE think I have arrived in regards to my sanctification but I DO have a testimony of, by grace through faith in Christ alone, where I have been is radically different from where I am now. Grace perfects nature and does not destroy it. I am open and seek to be yielded to God’s will for my life. If it is God’s will to transform my relationship into a platonic romance of chaste friends commited to one another in holy friendship then let it be!
I have spoken to Fr. John Harvey of the Courage Apostolate about this and he says there is a quiet movement of same sex couples who share their lives together but who are chaste. The position paper on homosexuality at the FiF site describes this phenomenon as well and this position of chaste lifelong friendships of mutual love (non-erotic), encouragement and support is also sanctioned by Tony Campolo (Baptist).
Have thine own way Lord, have thine own way. You are the potter and I am the clay.
Mark P–Thanks for your warm and gracious reply.
“In our vestry, the SUPPORTERS of VGR voted down my sugestion that we have a ministry for gays and all the reasserters voted for it. The liberals refused to have an active Hispanic ministry and the reasserters all voted for it. The liberals refused to agree to a clearing house for homeless and jobless on the church property. Then the Rector fired me as head of Evangelism. Most Episcopalians don’t want any controversy. They don’t want to deal with the turmoil in TEC but they also don’t take the Gospel imperatives seriously. The point is this: Simply because I listen and care without agreeing, simply because a close relaitive “came out†does not mean I love them less. But the listening process in TEC will only be deemed successful if I change my theology, not my love.”
David,
Thank you for your voice and your ministry in this Church. It sounds like you know well what it is to be a parish “misfit”. All of the ideas you asked to be voted on seem noble and intrinsic to what we Christians are supposed to be about. It sounds like thry lost many opportunities to be salt and light and firing you seems reflective of their own apathy. Did anybody “go to bat for you” to the Rector? Don’t give up. I know you don’t hate gay folk and I know that is true of the vast majority of reasserters. In my own experience, what needs to happen is that reasserrting folk and their churches need to learn to be welcoming in their refusal (based on their understanding of scripture) to be affirming. Would that as many churches who provide space and support to a plethora of support groups (i.e. A.A.) become deeply intentional about doing the same for those who are glbt.
It would change thy current dynamics in amazing ways.
After reading Archangelica’s statement, it seems to me that the first thing reasserting churches should do is confess their own sins. When Christians confess personal sins first, its much more impressive. Granted, from what I read, it is probably a very short list.
And then once you are perfect, start with someone else.
#24–archa–Thanks for reading my comment. We are in total agreement. With all deference to Mark P, in my personal experience, the liberals in my parish like gays, blacks, Hispanics and the homeless in theory, they just don’t want to actually touch one. We have ministries which we help FUND, but they are always in distant locations. We even hired the diocesan missioner for Hispanic mininsries as an assistant, but made her keep the Spanish language services at another location. Interestingly, we do have AA, but even that has been questioned. As to your question, our assistant for Discipleship was very pastoral, but no one dared mentioned it to the Rector.
Mark P–Sorry for my previous reply. I was referring to the vast TEC middle, non-active, pew sitters and counrty club Episcopalians. You may be lucky and not have alot of those where you are, but where I am, in my parish and in my diocese, they are the majority.
I think this reads well, but Christians should remain mindful that the core principle found here “covers a multitude of sins.” That is, we should listen to the stories of all sinners: practicing alcoholics, heterosexual sex addicts, liars, gamblers, gossips, and on and on. We are, far and away, the most broken if we fail to love sinners as we sinners have been loved. At least under grace we have been called to mirror that sort of love.
While I appreciate much that he says here I cannot abide Peter’s ecclesiological theory that “GAFCON and the Global South should call an immediate moratorium on border-crossing” thereby “confessing that the act . . . was wrong” in the first place. A member of our parish here, William Cox, remains a bishop in the Communion thanks only to ++Venables’ willingness to do the right and proper thing in this situation. Bishop Cox’s story is but one of many that have not yet fully been told.
I appreciate everyone’s reflections on the canons of Nicea, but as you retreat to the authority of the early councils consider that the instruments of unity and the magisterium are weak parallels. Bear in mind also that by the 340s, and without seeking permission, even St Athanasius crossed boundaries in dioceses where bishops had lapsed into Arianism or where these bishops were permitting Arianism to thrive.
What ++Venables and other Global South bishops are doing in North America is right and just under our current circumstances.
“And then once you are perfect, start with someone else.” John, then when you are perfect then you may presume to instruct us.
The plain simple fact is that all of us sin and none of us is perfect. John sets up an impossible standard for correction. Paul was not perfect and Timothy was not perfect, yet they presumed to look to the standard of Scripture and measure themselves and other Christians against it. John presumes to correct no one, except us.
Archangelica, I appreciate your testimony. If you are in a non-celebate sexual relationship outside of marriage then I cannot condone it, but as one sinner with another I could share the cup of Christ with you.
Simply put, the Episcopal Organization needs to die so that there can be resurrection into a true church. As a physician, I have seen families torn asunder because grandpa takes months to die where a quick death could have actually brought the family together. Similarly, the TEO is moribund with disseminated cancer. If I have a patient with widely metastatic cancer, I don’t put them through an unnecessary procedure just to say, “At least, we did something.”
The TEO has already declared that the SSU’s blessings will continue. The ordination of homosexual clergy will continue. The consecration of homosexual bishops will, in all likelihood, start back in 2009.
But more importantly, the lawsuits and the depositions will continue. These are what have the orthodox fleeing for oversea oversight.
I am more than a little bit peaved that Rowan Williams has declared equivalency of cross border interventions to sanctification of homosexual relations in direct contradiction to the DeS Communique. Peter Ould’s call to cease interventions is an affirmation of the false equivalency.
But, the experience on the ground for many who suffer from same sex attractions is the opposite. And I don’t think enough reasserting parishes have done enough to confront this. I have heard “gay slurs†made by long time parishioners toward a “gay acting†visitor, as if you know their sexual practices.
I am sorry to hear this, Matthew. It is an ugly side of human nature that we find reasons to make fun of other people, that we assume things we have no right to assume. It is a frail side of human nature that we sometimes reassure ourselves by belittling someone else. (“At least I’m not like them.”) I know I am at times guilty of these things. Your post is an eloquent reminder of how cruel that is and how unChristian.
The reasserter position keeps being framed as “homophobic” and “anti-gay” and I don’t doubt that amongst us there may be people those words might describe. But I suspect that there are many who are like me – my dearest relative is a partnered gay. I ache for him, because I feel that this is wrong, but I love him just as much, just as deeply. We get together, all three of us, whenever we can. I love them both. I imagine there are many reasserters who have similar stories. For us, this is certainly not about hating gays.
I would welcome a gay or lesbian person to my church, but I don’t think gays should be in leadership positions in the church nor do I feel that we can honestly bless gay relationships. But we should certainly openly welcome gay brothers and sisters to our churches – and that means more than opening the door, that means a heartfelt and humble welcome into the fellowship of the church.
The current division has the sad effect of polarising us all, and the more polarised we become, the harder it becomes for any of us to unbend, I’m afraid. It is the theological direction that TEC is taking that alarms and upsets me.
Archangelica, thank you for sharing your story. It is humbling to read it. May God bless you and guide you and keep you safe.
You wrote: “What would your church do if a teen-aged homosexual prostitute showed up in your church nexty Sunday? Do you even care that there are thousands of them in the streets?”
I care – I’d like to know better how to help and would like to hear anything you can suggest. As far as I know, no homosexual has ever attended my church, which is quite small, but my church is in a part of town that is now populated with drug addicts and dealers and street people. Sometimes they knock on the door when we are having evening Bible study and ask for money. We invite them in and give them food. There are times when we have been frightened by the people who have shown up at our door, but we have always welcomed them and shared what we had. May God keep us from ever doing less, no matter who He sends to our door. And yes, we are a reasserting church in the south.
[b] David Keller -[/b]
Hmm – think you might consider a different church. For Pete’s Sake – not only has my Anglican Parish been involved in everything from the crisis pregnancy center – funding, helping, supporting, but the batter women’s shelter, the food bank, the Homeless shelter – just to name a few of our community ministries – not to mention our international outreach. We’ve got gay members in our church – and we treat them like any other member of the community.
Guess what? I don’t run about the sanctuary with “I gossiped this week” on my forehead – I don’t expect anyone else in my community to run about displaying their sins either – I am working on my own sanctification (through Christ), I guess I believe that if others know Christ they will do so as well.
[b] archangelica[/b] – You Rock.
[b] Re: Differentiation of Accepting Sin as Opposed to Overcoming It[/b]
I’ve thought a great deal about this piece by Peter this morning. What I’m trying to say I think is best said by example. Christians talk about their predisposition to sin in their lives. My predispositions to sin (some of them, anyway) are in the realm of sarcasm and selfishness. I have very salient reasons for both:
My sarcasm came from dealing with an uncontrollable situation in my family – principally a divorce between my parents when I was very young and my father marrying the psychotic woman he ran off with afterwards. My siblings and I learned early on in life that we had two choices – we could laugh at what we couldn’t control or go insane. We choose the former. So, I have developed a great propensity to fight what I cannot control with a sense of humor which sometimes gets me in trouble. Sometimes that gift of humor is a good thing… and sometimes it is not… it is the [b] NOT[/b] part that God would declare sinful.
I also have a tendency to be ‘selfish’ – to isolate myself and just deal with what I want too. Part of that is my disposition – my mother can tell you that when I was young I’d hide rather than talk to people – I’m just shy. The second was a part of my environment – having divorced parents in the 70’s made one extremely odd and unpopular – and, of course, a divorced mother with four children was poor. In addition, I was abused when I was young that made me feel even more different. These things all contributed to my tendency to not interact and isolate myself.
Now, none of this is to whine about and play ‘victim’ but to make the point that I could use these things in my life – both genetic and environmental to ‘justify’ both my sarcasm and my selfishness. I could tell you that it is not right for anyone to judge me and I have a right to pursue them if I please… I think you see the point.
However, God does not ‘leave me be’ to be the victim of either my genetics or my environment – He wants a better life for me. I’ve been called to be kind – not cruel – and this is a better life choice for me. I’ve been called to be a part of other people’s lives and not focus solely on my own – and this is a better life choice for me. Those of us who are naturally introverted find it hard to talk and be a part of things – it is not my second nature and I have to fight to be interactive. If you think it is easy for someone who has been abused to trust the opposite sex again and form relationships – you have never struggled with that issue. So, while I might not struggle with ‘same sex-attraction’ I have a few pretty difficult issues of my own I get to struggle with.
Leaving these sins are not ‘my nature’ but they are what I have been called to as a Follower of Christ. I cannot do them by my own strength – but through His – it is the only way.
All of which is to say, all of us may not struggle with homosexuality, but we ALL struggle with our own predispositions – our own weaknesses that we cannot overcome without Christ’s strength in our lives. That is why I have little problem with other Christians who struggle in different areas – as long as we know God wants not merely what is there – but what is BEST. We are conformed to His Image because it is the best way to live and breathe – we are under His Commandments even when they are not ours because we KNOW Romans 8 is true:
“For I know that all things work to the common good for those who know and love the Lord, those who are called to His Purpose.”
Peter calls us to remember that none of us are without our own sinful struggles – but we mustneeds remember that the purpose of the struggle is NOT giving up but overcoming through Christ… that is why we were redeemed in the first place.
#23–Eclipse–Yeah, I know. I have been attending another, much smaller church quite a bit. My old rector left last year and we have a new one coming in two weeks. I thought I’d give him a chance and see what he is like before I bag it altogether. Who knows, maybe he will be a mega-evangelist. In my city there is no Anglican alternative, so if I move, I will still be in TEC, which has complicated my decsison.
OOPS–make that #32 Eclipse.
I am 71, I have a “past”, I have confessed this to God and to one other person. I am not obligated to keep telling my story to anyone who will listen, neither am I obligated to listen to the story of everyone who chooses to tell theirs to me. When God puts someone in my life who has never before confessed to another person, I listen, I pray, I bring the light of scripture to bear on the situation. The result is up to the Holy Spirit and the confessing individual. There is more to my life and to my ministry than listening to the woes and failings of others.
RE: #31. Thank you Sherri for your kind response. I only wish there were more of you and that most people found this welcome. But, we are broken so . . . .
As for your comment on leadership position, I am okay with that as long as its applied evenly, across the board and I’ve also seen that discrepancy too, which just gives more fuel to reaspppraisers. For example, in a former parish, a gay man was told he was not allowed to be part of the Altar Guild but the head of it was a woman living in a cohabitation relationship. Her rationale is that this is a “womans” ministry and that may have been her true motive, but it was clouded by her own views of homosexuals (Bad) versus fornicators (good) and the rectors unwillingness to take on the “turf” she had created.
Even assuming, for the sake of argument, her motives were not based on homosexuality, I still keep coming back to the gender/masculinity divide that I alluded to earlier. I am not saying there can be no room for “mens ministries” or whatever, and I know the elves might object because I am getting off topic (but it relates to listening) but gender is a big issue in many churches about what is permissible, not permissible, etc. that has nothing to do with scripture, sexual brokenness, etc. but simply an assertion of “only woman do that.” And, often, there is very little justification for the “rule” other than we’ve always done it that way. And sometimes these rules also alienate people. Sometimes this is also attributed (incorrectly) to homophobia. But, there are, in fact, may gender misfits in our parishes, regardless of sexual behavior, and many happen to also be drawn to reappraising parishes because they also happen to be more open to gender bending. I have found some reasserting parishes to be as opposed to homosexual practice as they are to gender nonconformity and they don’t question some assumptions. I see gender based distinctions made all the time in churches and I’m not sure many of the people making them really grasp the reason for doing it. I think that is one of the gifts of gay people in the church, including the non-practising, is a reevaluation of what we think about gendered behavior. This is where listening might come in handy. I notice that sometimes the reaction to an effeminate man is visceral and emotion laden and filled with anger. As I listen to these diatribes, it occurs to me that the anger and emotion is not purely because of sexual behavior (especially when you don’t know they’ve engaged in any inappropriate behavior). I can only conclude its based on gender and stereotypes and that is what raises their blood pressure. Such individuals need to ask why it is the gendered behavior that makes one so angry. Think, for example, Richard Simmons, who is a practising Roman Catholic and according to wikipedia is not sexually active and to my knowledge has never admitted to homosexuality.
David Keller –
Then I shall pray for you to find another alternative. That is seriously too bad. Our solution was to begin an Anglican church in our community – very hard but doable.
I’ll pray for your new priest that he can bring healing and leadership.
Matthew, you wrote:
gender is a big issue in many churches about what is permissible, not permissible, etc. that has nothing to do with scripture, sexual brokenness, etc. but simply an assertion of “only woman do that.†And, often, there is very little justification for the “rule†other than we’ve always done it that way.
Or “only men do that” – in our small church, we had only one man with us at morning prayer one Sunday and he did not want to lead the service, yet he and others felt uncomfortable when a woman did it (me, in fact). I’m still not sure what we were supposed to do – go home because there wasn’t a man willing to lead the service? Shrinking churches may ultimately solve some of these problems. 🙁 I know that our church would be happy to have a man on the altar guild!
I notice that sometimes the reaction to an effeminate man is visceral and emotion laden and filled with anger. As I listen to these diatribes, it occurs to me that the anger and emotion is not purely because of sexual behavior (especially when you don’t know they’ve engaged in any inappropriate behavior). I can only conclude its based on gender and stereotypes
Because I am a woman, I suppose I haven’t had as much opportunity to observe this, Matthew. Your example of Richard Simmons makes clear what you mean. As a rule, I think Christians should always try to avoid stereotypes. When we see stereoptypes instead of individuals, we aren’t really *seeing* at all. So yes, this is “listening” that’s always needed, I think.
As for your comment on leadership position, I am okay with that as long as its applied evenly, across the board
Absolutely!
On topic modification of post at Peter’s:
In response to Rowan’s:
[blockquote]
It’s worth adding, too, that the call for a moratorium on interventions across provinces belongs in the same theological framework.
[/blockquote]
Newbie Anglican writes:
[blockquote] It does NOT belong “in the same theological framework†of same-sex innovations at all. Even church fathers, such as St. Athanasius, engaged in interventions, but they sure as heck did not engage in same-sex blessings. And, while there are a number of passages addressing same-sex conduct, scripture does not say much about the holiness of diocesan boundaries. Moreover, the Primates Meeting clearly said that interventions to relieve distressed orthodox are NOT equivalent to the enormities of North American provinces. Yet ++Rowan ignores and undermines the Primates . . . once again.
[/blockquote]
See here [url=
http://wannabeanglican.blogspot.com/2008/08/lambeth-rowan-williams-on-proposed.html ]here[/url].
First, archangelica, I too thank you for your testimony. Listening is the critical first step to effective evangelism, and there are numerous examples of this all over Acts. The issue I have with the Ould document is that it is all about sex and sexuality. The problem is much much deeper. Last winter, when I was still in Birmingham, KJS came to visit and I attended a public forum at which she was present. When I queried her about her concept of the meaning of the Cross, she gave me all kinds of answers but never identified Christ’s Passion as atonement for our sin. I am very glad that I asked and listened on that occasion because I realized immediately what the major issue was with TECUSA in the main (or at least with KJS). But I cannot be in fellowship with her and cannot advocate for a moratorium on border crossings. The bottom line is that the sheep must be fed, and the Gospel must be spread.
38, to serve at God’s altar is a blessing. I do a lot of it. The altar guild is a noble calling and one to which men should not be afraid to do. Getting wax and wine stains out of lenin is a learned skill that even men can do. But, the point is, that service to the the Lord is gender neutral.
I have engaged in listening. Once while in discussion about the position TEC was taking on sexuality issues, a freind said to me “But what about… (referring to members of my parish) you know they are partnered.” I said that all I know is that I love them, work with them, worship with them, laugh with them, cry with them, pray with them and for them. Just as I do the rest of my parish family. I don’t condem them any more than I would go about the parish condeming others for the sins I observed or suspected. If they chose to share that aspect of their life with me, I would do what I could to support them in prayer and otherwise as they sought to reconcile with Christ. I don’t know that could do more than in the words of the song, “carry them to Jesus on my knees.”
TEC has told me that was not good enough.
I can not sacrifice the Gospel for anyone or anything, I cannot bless that which was sinful, I cannot reject the deity or uniqueness of Christ or reject the great commission for anyone or anything. I found that I could not stay in TEC and remain true to Christ and fulfill my calling. I could not entrust TEC with the care and shaping of the souls my children and grandchildren. I had to separate from TEC that for over 20 years had been my home; to separate from many who I saw as brothers and sisters and friends.
To characterize the issues of separation as cross border crossing is a gross mischaracteriztion of the separation of those who can no longer stay within TEC. It is a structural analysis; that belittles the pain we endured. The separation we endured is organinc; a rending. This is not a tug of war between competing bishops or provinces. This is a matter of refuge to those who are fleeing and being driven out of their homes. It is an attempt by those refugees to preserve their Anglican heritage and identity as they try to live into the fullness of their life in Christ. This cannot be done inside TEC. How can you stay in a church you cannot support and still remain true to your calling as a Christian? Separation is the only way forward. Only by separating can we begin to see each other again as more than caricatures. If we walk apart for a time then some day reconciliation may be possible but not now.
The ABC has got it wrong. The half measures suggested are too little and too late.
The original post in this thread called for self-criticism. I want to try to get back to that.
Personally, the line that hurt me the most from Fr. Ould was:
That is me. I have had some modest opportunities to influence others to affirm the humanity and dignity of gays and lesbians and have utterly failed to do so. May God have mercy on my soul. I hope any homosexuals reading this prays for me.
I am a coward. I have been too far too concerned with what people (my fellow re-asserters and my family) think of me than with acting in charity toward gays and lesbians. I fear that my desire to avoid being labeled a “heretic” has instead led me to become a hypocrite. Like many here, I firmly believe that same-sex intercourse is sinful and the Church has no power to bless or condone that activity. But I’ve been afraid to publicly acknowledge that homosexuals should be entitled to the same (secular) legal protections that I have because I don’t want to be criticized by fellow re-asserters.
There is a saying: “don’t dump a glass of water on my head and tell me it’s raining.” But that is precisely what I’ve been doing to homosexuals over the years. I have said “I love you” to a transgender person and then bad-mouthed a law that would allow him/her to use the same public accommodations that I can. I have said “I’m a sinner just like you” to a gay man and then proceeded to critique a Supreme Court decision that allows him to have sex in the privacy of his own home. (All the while keeping my own battles with – hetero – pornography to myself!) I’ve even invited a (non-Christian) gay man to church and then turned around and voted against his desire to marry his (non-Christian) partner in a (non-Christian) ceremony, not just once, but twice. Despite my protestations to the contrary, my actions in the political sphere have demonstrated a disregard for the basic rights and dignity of homosexuals.
I think my silence is even more damning. When Peter Akinola says something demonstrably false like “there is no homosexuality among the animals” or “there are no gays in Africa,” I don’t say or write anything to the contrary. When posters on Christian message boards want to attach adjectives like “homo-erotic” or “sodomite” to every reference to V. Gene Robinson, I don’t say or write anything to the contrary. When the (inevitable) reference to a San Francisco Pride parade comes up in a some discussion (Godwin’s law for gays, anyone?), do I bother to mention Mardi Gras in rebuttal? No…
If any of my gay acquaintances ever thought that I really didn’t like them, it is probably because I wasn’t acting as if I did really like them.
I’m heading into treacherous waters here but, what if, in the spirit of generosity that +Rowan spoke about, re-asserters dropped their opposition to (some or most) secular civil rights for gays and lesbians?
God gave us free will. He does not force us to follow Him. Why should I continue to support the use of the coercive power to the state to do something that God Himself does not do (e.g. force people to behave in a certain way)? If gays and lesbians want to become Christian, then we will educate them in what Christ requires. But why use the state to hold non-Christian gays and lesbians to Christian standards?
I shocked my brother one time when I said “just because something is sinful doesn’t mean it should be illegal – there are many things that are sinful that are not illegal – and this is a good thing in a democratic pluralist society.†I hadn’t fully thought explored that thought at the time (I kind of surprised myself when I blurted it out) but I find myself thinking on it often recently.
A county near me passed a law banning discrimination in public accommodations against transsexuals and the conservative Christians around here (and in Colorado Springs) are up in arms about it. But what exactly is so terrible about preventing discrimination? If you run a store and a transgender person comes in, you should treat him/her as you would any other customer. If he/she wants to use the public restroom what are you going to do, make him/her urinate on him/herself? What kind of witness does it send for churches to send parishioners out to vote to repeal this law but then turn to the transsexuals and, with a saccharine-smile, say “oh, but we love you in the name of Jesus�
They don’t believe it and I can’t blame them. We use the power of the church to lobby against extending basic civil rights to gays and we expect them to come running to us in gratitude? It is hard to have dignity when laws (like anti-sodomy laws or lack of legal protections for basic things like housing, jobs and medical care) are targeting you.
Again and again, I recognize that the Church has no power to bless what God has called sin. But if two non-Christian homosexuals want to have a secular civil union to publicly recognize what they feel for each other and to protect their property rights, why should I object? Someday God will judge them. Why is it better to force them to carry on in secret? If a lesbian couple wants to adopt a child – that no one else is going to adopt – what is it to me? If we took all the kids from the homes of parents who are sinners, there would be no families left. As long as the lesbian couple doesn’t abuse the child, why should the state prohibit it?
I’m going to stop now because the post is too long. But I’m afraid for what is coming in the comments that follow: “St. Cuervo is a heretic who is compromising with evil. There should be no ‘special rights’ for gays but, of course, they are welcome in my church anytime. And, really, I can identify perfectly with them because I overcame my addiction to gossip, which everyone knows is just as tough as dealing with same-sex attraction….†The point of all this is that I’m not going to let that fear drive me anymore. I may not be fully correct here, but it is time for re-asserters to grapple with what it means to recognize the dignity and humanity of gays and lesbians. That is what I’m trying to do.
St. Cuervo :
I want verification of this before I even engage you on it – a verbatim quote mind you:
[blockquote] When Peter Akinola says something demonstrably false like “there is no homosexuality among the animals†or “there are no gays in Africa,†I don’t say or write anything to the contrary. [/blockquote]
Once you address that with some validity, then we can proceed.
Thanks.
Ould is right about listening, wrong about “incursions.” The very argument he uses against “incursions” is the argument for them. As Rowan Williams, whom Ould clearly admires, himself said: The burden of proof is on those who propose the radical new doctrine. (I paraphrase, of course.) Do those who propose new doctrine believe they are the sole holders of truth? Ould implies that border crossers are arrogantly asserting they are the sole holders of truth. Doesn’t that standard of arrogance apply to the innovators as well?
Reading what ‘St Cuervo’ says about restrooms and transgenders, I’m guessing ‘St Cuervo’ isn’t a woman.
I want to thank everyone for the comments they have made on my post. I want to respond to comment #45 as I believe I need to clarify what I am actually saying.
Firstly, I am personally in favour, in the long run, of boundary crossing. I have written before on the [url=http://www.peter-ould.net/2006/12/22/deposing-bishops/”]precedents for it[/url] and how in my opinion a two province solution in the US [url=http://www.peter-ould.net/2007/02/17/the-long-term-problem-with-two-provinces/]will not work[/url]. If anything I am more conservative on my vision of the future of the Anglican Communion in the USA, because I believe that such a future will very likely [b]not[/b] contain TEC.
Secondly, what I [b]am[/b] arguing for is one last effort for reconciliation, a time to hold off before the final schism. I’m not arguing that we should hand back churches that have left, simply that we should not take any more churches out of TEC until at least the Primates Meeting next year. This gives a six month or so gap for conservatives to be introspective, to come honestly to the Lord and, without other activity clouding our consciences, to reflect whether we have sinned at all in this matter.
This six month period also gives TEC enough time to demonstrate its willingness to abide by the moratoria it has been asked to keep. It is enough time for the House of Bishops to agree not to permit any form of same-sex blessing. It is enough time for Diocesan Conventions to pass single clause measures forbidding the ordination or consecration of anybody in a sexual relationship outside of marriage between a man and a woman.
Let’s not forget, we are asking the revisionists to do something very painful – to abandon their justice agenda on this issue. If we are not willing to do something equally as painful (and arguably divisive) what right do we have to demand it of them?
I am [b]not[/b] arguing that border crossers are arrogant. I know some of the chief border crossers personally, and they are the most humble of men (even if their stoles are a bit comical……). What I [b]am[/b] arguing is that as we approach the moment of clear division, is it not beholden to those of us who claim to take God’s revelation in word and sacrament and incarnated Christ utterly seriously to make one last sacrificial effort to maintain unity?
Remember, we are all as fallen human beings caught in a web of sin. We are sinned against and often we then sin in response, sometimes with little or no control. It is vitally important at this moment of potential division that we come to the point of schism with clean hearts and cleansed souls. A moratorium would enable us to do exactly that.
Hi St. Cuervo,
I don’t think you’re a heretic — just wrong about expanding the legal, secular definition of marriage to include that of a civil union/civil marriage between the same gender [i]unless we also expand the secular definition of marriage to include all desired partnerships between one person and whomever or whatever else.[/i]
I see no reason to expand the secular legal definition of marriage to include one new set of partnerships, and not all of the other conceivable sets of partnerships out there based on either legal needs or sexual orientation.
Peter O:
[blockquote] Let’s not forget, we are asking the revisionists to do something very painful – to abandon their justice agenda on this issue. If we are not willing to do something equally as painful (and arguably divisive) what right do we have to demand it of them? [/blockquote]
To those of us who have “felt the love” of revisionist TEC bishops, this looks an awful lot like someone demanding of a district fire dept. that in order to get a group of arsonists (who also happen to the be the fire dept. in our district) to stop setting fires, they should agree to a moratorium on their rescue efforts.
Peter:
[b] Re: Moratorium on Border-Crossings[/b]
Well, I could easily abide by your idea because I’m in a Continuing Church – however, what Briane said is true – until you have experienced what it is like to be under a revisionist bishop, you really can’t tell other Anglicans – “Hey, sit tight and be abused for 6 more months.” For those of us who have had that pleasure, it is debilitating Spiritually, relationally, and emotionally. We were literally watching our church be destroyed (loosing people and mission) and the efforts to ‘help us’ by our bishop were really only efforts to keep him in control of the church… by whatever means possible… he really didn’t care about the people. I told your proposal to a former clergy’s wife of that diocese and she went totally went over the edge – couldn’t imagine having to go back under that kind of abusive control – to say it was ‘hellish’ is to give it overtones of gentility.
So, I am sorry, but I cannot make that choice for someone else – having been through it myself.
The principle of Dar Salaam was the best one – border crossings would stop WHEN TEC actually did what it said it would do. For those of us in the breach, it is the safest course.
Unity at the price of individual parish’s destruction – doesn’t sound like a Fruit of the Spirit to me.
[b]St. Ceurvo:[/b]
Secondly, there is arrogance in this statement:
[blockquote]And, really, I can identify perfectly with them because I overcame my addiction to gossip, which everyone knows is just as tough as dealing with same-sex attraction….â€[/blockquote]
Until you walk in the shoes of another person and understand the challenges they face, you cannot PRESUME that their struggles are not as difficult as another believer’s. Gossip may not be YOUR besetting sin, but it might be someone’s and trivializing it because somehow it is not as difficult as ‘same sex attraction’ (in your opinion) shows a lack of understanding about what it is like to try to be conformed into the image of Christ in any depth of reality.
CS Lewis:
[blockquote]A silly idea is current that good people do not know what temptation means. This is an obvious lie. Only those who try to resist temptation know how strong it is… A man who gives in to temptation after five minutes simply does not know what it would have been like an hour later. That is why bad people, in one sense, know very little about badness. They have lived a sheltered life by always giving in.[/blockquote]