Those who practice homosexuality have no chance of living the abundant life of which Jesus spoke. The objective studies (the results of which rarely appear in main stream media even when the research is done by pro gay and lesbian groups) are clear and compelling with regard to the inordinately high levels of social, emotional, spiritual, and physical difficulties experienced by those captured by the gay and lesbian way of life.
Given that an Episcopal priest is a shepherd of a local Christian flock, the question for the parishes of Cape May County is do we want a shepherd who has herself chosen a path that cannot lead to human fulfillment? To be a shepherd of God’s people one must minimally have the Creator’s view on what needs to be in place for individuals to experience the abundant life in Christ. So out of care for the well being of those who seek true spiritual guidance, installing a priest, a spiritual leader, who is a practitioner and defender of homosexuality is, by any measure the wrong way to go for Christians who seek the robust human flourishing of their fellow pilgrims.
Read it all. This article is posted as an alternative viewpoint to that of the Bishop of New Jersey posted earlier. An explanation from the editor is here.
The editor’s note says that Craig Hazen is a professor at Biola University. Biola is located in southern California, a conservative Christian institution that grew from a bible college to a university. The editor doesn’t say, and it is not clear from his op-ed piece, if Dr. Hazen is an Episcopalian. If he is not, then I wonder why the editor did secure an Episcopalian to state the opposing view. There are certainly plenty of us out there who have opposed the appointment of clergy with a homosexual orientation. Maybe even some in New Jersey.
I meant, of course, “…why the editor did not secure an Episcopalian…”
Dr. Hazen cites “objective studies” about the lack of abundant life among gays and lesbians. First, what are these “objective studies” to which he is referring? Second, if he means higher levels of emotional and social disfunctions, such as depression, addictions, etc., I hardly see it necessary to remind everyone of what is so well known: correlation does [b]not[/b] prove causation. If one is attracted to people of the same sex and grows up being told that he or she is wrong/disordered/abomination, is it any wonder that some people might suffer from clinical depression and/or turn to alcohol or drugs? Also, as have often been stated, if one looks at only the members of a group who are having emotional/social difficulties, one might conclude that is normative of all members of that group; but that is hardly a valid conclusion.
I know plenty of people with those problems. I’ve even dealt with some myself. (Of course, that might have more to do with being bipolar, a totally separate issue.) However, I can also point to countless gays/lesbians/bisexuals/etc. who have come to accept who they are and have committed themselves to walking (sometimes stumbling) along the path of holiness in their lives as whole persons loved by God. Looking at the fruits of their individual lives and their relationships (from friendships to committed partnerships), I find no evidence whatsoever of a lack of abundant life compared to heterosexuals.
In Christ,
Kevin Montgomery
#3, well, if all you’re looking for is warm fuzzies and happy feelings, then perhaps you’re right. However, the point of the article is that Jesus’ idea of abundant life goes quite a bit deeper than that.
Thanks for your contribution, Kevin. I had the same thought, and was also struck by how assuming Dr. Hazen is about the relationship that will develop between this priest and her two churches. Does he think that the two congregations had no say in her appointment?
This is aside from his presumption that “abundant life” as he defines it is only achievable by heterosexuals. As a hetersexual who knows well some homosexual brothers and sisters in Christ who practice their faith in our parish, I can attest to the opposite. I’m confident that there are thousands of Episcopalians who can attest the same of their gay or lesbian clergy, and who benefit from them as they seek to “grow into the full stature of Christ.”
Rolling Eyes (#4),
Actually, I’ve come to a point where I don’t expect “warm fuzzies” here or really anywhere. I find to be highly superior the the “strangely warmed” feeling in my heart I experience when studying the Scriptures, studying theology, in prayer, and in remembering the ways God has been active in my life, strengthening and forming me by the Holy Spirit to be a better member of the Body of Christ. Sometimes I fall. Sometimes I’m face-down in the mud, but that’s hardly unique to me or the result of my being gay.
As for the abundant life, what do you see as the marks of such a life? (I want to know if we’re talking about the same thing here.)
In Christ,
Kevin
I will always be a sinner but my acceptance of Christ as my redeemer calls me to not live the sinful life I once knew. If sexual intercourse outside of sacramental marriage is a sin, how can homosexuals, lesbians or heterosexual adulterers/fornicators worship God by embracing and celebrating their sin? They are not transformed by Jesus’ saving sacrifice. Doesn’t Christ tell us unless we bear a cross too we cannot be His disciple? Yet today we see no cross is necessary, just obey the golden rule and whatever else we choose is ok with God? What kind of Christianity is that? The new Nicolaitan’s?
I do not presume to judge others I only ask the question. I have my own cross to bear (gladly now) and am accutely aware of that log in my eye.
Thank you, roman (#7),
I don’t think it’s a matter of not realizing that one has a cross to bear but rather learning which crosses need to be carried and which need to be laid down. Is it the Cross of Christ that leads to life, or is it the cross of the world that leads to death? In regards to sexuality, I do believe the abundant life Christ gives us does involve a commitment to chastity, but that applies to all Christians, gay or straight or otherwise. For those of us who are gay, the question then becomes this: What does that chastity look like? Heterosexuals have marriage, great. Does marriage (or something equivalent) exist for our relationships? Some, including myself, say yes. Others, including some who are gay, say no and hold celibacy to be the best option for us. Some definitely have a calling to celibacy, and I think we should do more to help people of all orientations discern if that is indeed their calling and find ways of living that out healthfully in the world. However, as with St. Paul, I do not believe that everyone has that calling (or even gift, if you prefer). Then the question arises as to whether a homosexual orientation necessarily equals a calling to celibacy. If it is (and I’m not right now convinced of that), then it is indeed a cross to bear (along with others); but one must choose to carry the cross. One cannot impose a particular cross on another. If that is not a cross you yourself are willing to bear, is it really your place to tell another to do so?
In Christ,
Kevin
Kevin,
I am not qualified to expound on homosexual orientation. You’re right, as a married heterosexual it is easy for me to wag my finger at the non-celibate homosexual/lesbian and say “Stop that.” But that is not my bag. It seems to me God gave us all free will and some of us are better than others at avoiding self-destruction. What I do take issue with are those who profess a love of Christ yet are not willing to follow. Jesus is the narrow door is He not? If we just love our neighbor as ourself and love our enemies can we still do what we want with our bodies, when we want with whomever we want? Now we’re talking antinomianism I guess. I had enough of that life until I found myself at the foot of the Cross. I tell all who’ll suffer me, I did not change, I WAS changed. God bless.
Roman (#9),
I’m not talking about doing “what we want with our bodies.” Frankly, I think you’ll be hard-pressed to find many other “reappraisers” advocating that. Instead, you’ll find more often than not a desire to have the same standards of commitment, love, monogamy, etc. applied to gays and lesbians as to heterosexuals. Do we all live up to those standards? Well, to be perfectly honest, just how many heterosexuals in the church actually live up to those standards? That doesn’t mean we say those standards don’t apply to them; so why can’t gays and lesbians apply them to ourselves?
You speak of self-destruction, but I’ve seen more self-destruction (and there’s plenty of it, don’t get me wrong) from those who have denied who they are and tried to live otherwise. Dr. Hazen mentions all of the varieties of difficulties, but as I wrote above (#3), correlation does not prove causation. Is the self-destruction [b]caused[/b] by one’s being gay, or is there a correlation in some people resulting from a separate, though possibly related, cause, such as the shame and even hatred that can get internalized when one is told (both overtly and more subtly) that one is an abomination not fit for the Kingdom of God. Many of us, myself included, have indeed found ourselves changed by the encounter with Christ, but in my case one of those changes has been the liberation (in the fuller, Christian sense) that comes from knowing that I am a child of God and that “God don’t make trash.”
In Christ,
Kevin
But, of course Kevin, there is the matter of the fall which corrupted God’s good creation. All you are really agruing is that you should feel good about yourself as you are now.
Forgive me Kevin for nitpicking, but doesn’t “abomination” refer more to the act rather than the individual? I could be wrong. I speak perhaps ignorantly from my Catholic perspective which in it’s simplistic dogma views the sin and the sinner as separate. It is not a sin to “be” homosexual but it is a sin to engage in homosexual sex. It is not a sin to “be” an alcoholic but it is a sin to get drunk. I know God doesn’t make trash but He also does not want us to live in sin and then ask for His blessing upon it. Peace.
Br. Michael (#11),
Actually, that’s not what I’m talking about at all. Rather, I’m trying to communicate the confidence of faith in God’s support of us in [b]ALL[/b] the struggles of life, a faith that is more likely to blossom when one accepts oneself as a loved child of God. I’ve seen better fruit from that kind of faith than from a faith based on declaring others to be worthless abominations. I’m not denying the fall. I’m not denying sin. I’m not denying the Cross, but I prefer to see all of that in the light of the Resurrection and to tell about the abundant life that I have seen and known.
In Christ,
Kevin
I don’t see any worthless abominations around here. All of us fall short. Yet I believe the phrase “children of God” is used without context or at least in a context I am unaware of. I thought Paul differentiates between “creations of God” and “children of God” in his letter to the Romans. Every human being walking the earth is made in His image and therefore His creation but not every human being walking the earth is His child. We have to DO something to be “adopted” by Him as it were. All are not included in God’s kingdom just because they exist and have self-worth. Or is there a yet another denomination I am unaware of?
Why did Jesus tell the adulteress to “go and sin no more.” Why didn’t He recognize her individuality and accept her just as she was and not impose or require change on her part? God loves us all that is a fact, even in our darkest moments He still loves us. And even though He wants us to love Him above all things we still dishonor His love by obeying our own will and not His. Is obedience to God’s will just another peciliar notion of us mackerel snappers? When did we get off that hook? I must have missed the memo.
My dear roman,
I have often found (and I’m not saying this is presently the case here) that those who speak the loudest about “loving the sinner and hating the sin” are often ones least likely to make the distinction in practice.
Let me tell what it can be like. One grows up and comes to realize that one is attracted to others of the same sex. That for us is as natural as being attracted to the opposite sex is for heterosexuals. But what happens, even when there’s no “activity” to speak of, is that we get labelled as disordered or “lower than dogs” or some such description. We’re told that there is no place for us in the Kingdom unless we change or at very least supress that “disorder”, but we know and are told that it’s practically impossible to make that change. And if that “disorder” is of such a fundamental part of who we are, then is it any surprise that one might then think of one’s whole self as not fit for the Kingdom?
All the best,
Kevin
Kevin,
Thank you for sharing that which I can’t pretend to understand. No, I have no idea of the life you describe. I am attracted to the opposite sex but I guess I take it for granted because when I think of myself, “heterosexual” is not the first thing that comes to mind. I don’t know what it is to identify myself or be identified by my sexual preference. In reality that’s just another concern of the flesh anyway isn’t it? And even though we live in this world we have an opportunity to reserve a place for ourselves in the next.
I have known pain and isolation but they were the consequence of my choices, my behavior, my will. God invites me to become “a new creation, the old is passed away..” It’s up to us when we decide to accept that invitation on His terms, not ours.
God bless.
Self-justifying and self-righteous horsecrap. Who among the other side even try to make the distinction? If you refuse to recognize the distinction, as the homosexualists do, you can’t very well claim that others who recognize the distinction aren’t doing it in practice, as you recognize no basis for making the judgment.
On a more important note, it’s not “humankind”. It’s mankind. Human is an adjective, not a proper noun. Once you make the bow to the feminists you are greasing the skids for the homosexualists.
Christopher Hathaway, are you sure you want to play King Canute to the tides of language? (Except that Canute of course was being facetious, to make a point to his flattering courtiers.)
Kevin, in #8, you appear to say that celibacy is a choice outside of marriage … though you describe it as a “calling,” which infers a choice. I think you have gotten to the nut of the matter. I don’t see anywhere in Scriptures where sex outside of marriage is a choice or a calling. Similarly, I don’t see anywhere in the Gospels (especially in Jesus’ words condemning adultery and fornication in Matthew and Mark) in which celibacy is not required, outside of marriage, for heterosexuals or homosexuals. And if sex occurs outside of marriage, then that would appear to be against God’s word, making us separate from God, and that is what I understand sin to be. You see, you (and GC 2003 and VGR) have taken something that was pretty plain from the word of God and turned it into something that is a “choice” for you, because that is what you wanted and that is what our secular culture has allowed and supported (and our TEC leadership has followed the secular culture). This is at the heart of the difference between reappraisers and reasserters, not just with regard to sexuality, but with regard to reappraisers’ Biblical interpretations. If it doesn’t feel ok (remember “I’m OK, You’re OK”), then there must be something wrong with the system, not with me. Well, when you say something’s wrong with God’s system, you are elevating yourself to God’s level, and that is definitely a losing position to take. The question is what part of the sytem is taken apart next … well, we’ve seen Jeffrey John, Susan Russell and Ed Bacon deny the atonement and called God a sociopath, if it was necessary for Jesus to die for the sins of mankind. I guess that gives us a clue to what is next. And I suspect you can see that such radical interpretation strikes at the heart of Christianity. So where does it end?
DC. The tide is immune to human intervention. It is controlled by the moon and the volume of water in the sea. Language is controlled by human decisions. The decision to stop using a word accelerates its demise while the decision to continue a word may revive it. Proper grammar did not just happen regardless of human activity, like the tide. It was deliberately taught. Sometimes abritrary, and frankly pointless, rules were established like not ending sentences with prepositions, something up with which we must not put, as Winston Churchill once said. But the rules are there and only cease to be effective the less they are forcefully taught.
Surrendering to new rules imposed by an idiotic and inhuman ideology affects the language in one way. I sek to affect it in the opposite manner by steadfastly rejecting the new gods.
I also stand frimly against the confusion of the subjective and objective in grouped pronouns; “he and I” versus “he and me”.
Call that Canutish if you will.
but not so firmly or frimly against careless typos. 😉
no. 14 – Isn’t it Catholic theology that we are “adopted” by God in Baptism? On another tack, IF homosexual orientation is not a choice, then, evidently, according to the reappraiser position, celibacy is the only life choice that is available. Perhaps that may be a special charism and status that gay people are called to. But, then again, what is celibacy’s boundaries. Can two homosexual people be “partners” without engaging in technical sodomy. Can celibate people kiss? Or can they only kiss when there is no sexual feeling behind the kiss? Just a few questions for all. Thx.
Yes rob k, as New Advent puts it, ” Baptism is, therefore, the sacrament by which we are born again of water and the Holy Ghost, that is, by which we receive in a new and spiritual life, the dignity of adoption as sons of God and heirs of God’s kingdom.”
This is what I meant when I questioned the use of the expression, “children of God” to apply to all people everywhere. This “Christianity” I am unfamiliar with where sin is only sin if it hurts someone else, all are included as they are, no one need change the life they choose for themselves because God loves us all and wants us to share that love with each other. Christ’s redeeming sacrifice is therefore made irrelevent and the Son of Man becomes just another social reformer? Didn’t Jesus say he came not to bring peace but to turn son against father, daughter against mother? How is that reconciled with the reappraising, “it’s all good” philosophy?
Oooh, I’m getting dizzy up here on my high horse.