The Reverend Robert Stocksdale of St. Andrew’s Church in Meriden, voted in favor of the [diocesan] resolution.
“I would like for us to have the ability to chose,” he said. “I don’t think Jesus would turn away anyone.”
The Reverend Robert Stocksdale of St. Andrew’s Church in Meriden, voted in favor of the [diocesan] resolution.
“I would like for us to have the ability to chose,” he said. “I don’t think Jesus would turn away anyone.”
As I recall Jesus said that there were any number of people who would not enter the kingdom of God. The story of the rich young rule is right on point.
I seem to remember a parable about a wedding – where one of the guests was thrown out for not having a wedding garment.
Phrases like “I don’t think Jesus would turn away anyone” are true, they just aren’t true enough. They are like chocolate. They taste good going down, but if that’s all you get, you will be terribly mal-nourished.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
There you guys go again, quoting the Bible. They don’t use that in the diocese of CT…well, I think I have seen it used as a paper weight and occasionally as a door stop…but certainly, no sensible person actually reads and believes the Bible in TEO of CT.
Father Stockdale, you and your diocese have turned US away.
I think all of us, on both sides of this “homosexuality” issue, are partly at fault for the failure to really communicate. It seems to me that one side speaks of “homosexuality” as the sin that is at issue, while many others of us are speaking of “the active homosexual lifestyle” when we speak of “the sin.” They are different, aren’t they? I mean, perhaps we have to concede that “homosexuality” is a genetic / environmental quality that many cannot “help.” Translating that into a lifestyle, into a pattern of behaviors, however, seems to me to be a completley different thing, and it is this set of behaviors that scripture seems to me to condemn. Am I missing something here, or are the two sides talking about two different things? If we are, then perhaps a celibate, self-confessed homosexual can, indeed, be a committed follower of
Christ. If it is the active, homosexual lifestyle that is the sinful aspect of this, then we need to name it as such, and differentiate between the two.
Correct!
jkc1945,
I would even say that a person who is a sexually active homosexual can be a Christian and a follower of Jesus Christ. But, that person’s sin cannot be blessed nor should that person be raised up to ordained leadership.
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been in prayer or study and found something new about myself that displeases God. I know of several people who are committed Christians who are still beset by some sin or other (I think the total is around 100%). The difference is that we do not ask the Church to redefine “sin” so that our particular behavior is no longer sinful nor do we ask the Church to bless our sin.
The reasserters (conservatives) tend to emphasize the behavior aspects of homosexual sex and the reappraisers talk about “homosexual people.” No one condemns people. That’s God’s job. But we can and do condemn behaviors that separate us from God.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Kendall, thanks for posting this, and thanks for your concise and astute commentary and questions above.
Here’s my response to the Record-Journal, in case it doesn’t get published there…
I don’t know Fr. Stocksdale, and wish him no ill will. But this brief quote is unfortunately representative of The Episcopal Church, and illustrates why I left for a new Anglican church plant. It offers vague assertions about what Jesus would or wouldn’t do, without any actual reference to scripture, Church tradition & teaching, or even minimal evidence that the Holy Spirit is leading such a change. It also presumes that priests in God’s church, who are supposedly under the authority of Jesus Christ and his church and his bishops, ought to have some kind of choice or discretion in deciding for themselves what to bless or not bless. This sort of approach to religion has turned The Episcopal Church into a political advocacy group rather than a ministry to disciple people for the Kingdom of God. Taking the bible as a whole, we must acknowledge that God is indeed very concerned with “justice” (although that may not always align with our post-modern sensibilities of what justice looks like); but we must also acknowledge that God is even more concerned with holiness.
I know this is a politically incorrect position, and people of opposing views will write it off as “homophobia” or oppression. Good, solid Church teaching does not allow me to condemn another person for his/her orientation, or even for his/her behavior; after all, it confirms that I’m a sinner as well as the next person. But it does call me to lovingly call my brothers and sisters to a life of holiness and reconciliation to God. Just as I can’t belittle or condemn my fellow sinners, The Episcopal Church can’t bless what God does not bless. I’m not trying to oppress anybody or take away their rights; I’m just trying to hold the Church to account for a faithful witness to the faith handed down to it. If Bishop Smith, Fr. Stocksdale, et al can’t defend the faith, integrity requires they hand over the Church to those who will.
jkc1945 – I think, for the most part, reasserters do name the active homosexual lifestyle as the sin, that we are all sinners and fall short of the glory of God, and that by confessing our sin and trying to follow Christ, we are committed followers of Christ, no matter our sexual inclinations. What I have found, however, is that often those in the homosexual lifestyle either do not want/cannot separate their being from their activities, and so see condemnation of the activity as condemnation of themselves. So the two sides are often speaking past each other, in particular because those advocating the homosexual lifestyle know that if they separate the two, then they lose the “civil rights” argument.
Ok, I also think we “talk past each other” on this set of issues, and if that is true, then it behooves all of us to work at not doing that. If it is true that one side is afraid or reticent to acknowledge that “the sin” may be a set of behaviors because “they lose the civil rights issue,” then what can we do, those of us who want to continually assert the Truth of scripture, what can we do to begin to facilitate reconciliation, if anything. I mean, it would be a real shame, wouldn’t it, if we all wind up going our separate ways because we “talked past each other,” when we might have been able to find reconciliation, at least to some degree, if we had all worked a little harder at communication? By the way, I ought to properly identify myself; I am not an Anglican, nor a member of TEC, I am actually one of those “heretical Anabaptists,” but i often come to this website because I learn so much from my Anglican sisters and brothers hers. I really ought to keep quiet here, but it turns out that our little denomination is in the throes of this very same “talking past each other” on this very same set of issues.
Did anyone notice the comment below the article in the link above? It’s by robroy, whom, I believe, is a frequent commenter at VOL and possibly also at the MCJ.
jkc1945
There a lot in what you say about talking past each other. The reasserters talk the language of “righteousness” or right relationship with God. Our arguments are grounded in Holy Scripture and in the unbroken tradition of the Church.
The reappraisers speak the language of “civil rights” and “acceptance” and ground their arguments in “fairness” and “justice.”
I tried a thought experiment with a group of people where we attempted to argue the other person’s point of view. It is quite enlightening to see what others think of our arguments.
One thing that we need to be cautious about is thinking that those who disagree with us are trying to destroy the Chuch or are filled with hatred. While that may work as an argument within our own circles, it is simply not true. I do not believ that +KJS or +Robinson are trying to destroy the Church. I believe that they are badly mistaken and that the effect of their actions are harming the Church and her witness in the world. But that is different than believing that they personally are harming the Church.
It may seem like a subtle difference, but it is an important one.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
I recall C S Lewis saying somewhere that all the passages in the NT that can be read as “universalist” are in Paul, and the most fearful admonitions about hell are the words of our Lord.
I have heard he talking past each other argument often, and I suppose it does happen. And yet, the issue here really is whether the NT us ti be believed or not. And what Christ tells us is this, that if we commit a sin in our minds, we have indeed committed a sin. Motive, is short, counts, and heavily indeed. If a homosexual desires to have sex with another man, he has indeed sinned. It will follow, generally speaking, that to be a homosexual and to commit the sin are the same thing. That is, the wish and the will are what define a homosexual in the first place. If this is so, then those who defend scripture are not talking past anyone. They are simply iterating what the NT says. How can this be be read otherwise? LM
Larry, I’m sorry, but the NT can be read a number of other ways; ways that will not crush the hope of any and all persons who read it. To read the Sermon on the Mount that way means that every person who has felt any temptation has sinned, and to the extent that they continue to be tempted, they continue to sin. What hope is there for you or me, or those who struggle with same-sex attractions? I think that’s an overly-restrictive way of interpreting what Jesus was saying. It also forecloses any opportunity for ministry to these people, therefore putting reconciliation with God that much further away instead of closer.
It seems to me that if Jesus taught anything clearly, it was unconditional love for our neighbor, and everybody is our neighbor. And we cannot love (agape) without seeking reconciliation.
I recognize that the “root cause” of the disagreements now boiling up over the “homosexual issue” is actually a disagreement over how we interpret scripture. And I make no claim to having the inside track on righteous interpretation; but this I know, pretty much for sure – – if homosexuals are condemned because of what they are, then so am I. And so is everyone else. It seems correct to me that our behaviors, our conscious rebellious acts, require the atonement of the cross as the “cleansing agent.” But I think we probably err if we start supposing that homosexuals (for example) are condemned because of how they are, deep in theie conscious and soul. I think God will take even such a “lemon” as me, and make lemonade if I will cooperate in any way.
jkc1945, I don’t disagree, that’s essentially what I was saying as well. But just to be clear, you did mention that “cooperate” part! The crux (pardon the expression) of the issue is that when the Church says something is OK, it is telling people there is no sin there, and therefore no need to “cooperate” in its atonement. To me, that’s the real issue – not what Joe or Jane are doing in their bedrooms, but what the Church is officially teaching, because it affects people’s souls.