14 OCTOBER - A LETTER

TO THIS EDITOR

This is the fourth, and last, installment in a series of letters to this editor from two writers, both of whom asked that their names be withheld. The subject is homosexuality. The first letter was posted here on Oct.10. The second was a letter in response, on Oct. 12. The third was a response from the first writer to the second, on Oct. 13. Now we have a response from the second writer to the first. This will conclude this string. I invite others to join the conversation.

As before, for the sake of time and space, I will give the first writer's (Oct. 13 letter) remarks in italics and the second writer's responses in regular type. For the full text, see the original letters. 

__________________________________

Dr. Caldwell [in response to the Oct. 13 letter]:

Thank you so much for the opportunity to respond. I have entered my responses following the statements.

As I emphatically stated in my original comment, to exclude someone is the antithesis of Jesus' unequivocal teaching in the Gospels that all are included and none are excluded, unless they choose to be excluded. Original sin would be at work in them not to choose. This is clearly the teaching of the parables.

Everyone (EVERYONE) is welcomed in the DSC. No one who desires to be there is excluded. What's not allowed is someone desiring a leadership role who is openly living in sin. There's the problem. I (we/DSC?) believe practicing homosexuality is sin. You/TEC do not. Hence the chasm between us.

Many of Freud's theories have been dropped, but his creation of the term "homosexual" is beneficial because it is non-judgmental.

Anything non-judgmental is acceptable?

If homosexuals are not given full acceptance, the DSC, presuming you speak for it (presuming I speak for all the TEC, which I do not claim) you are excluding others as not fit for full church membership; therefore it is exclusion.

No one is denied church membership. Someone may be denied leadership, not because of homosexuality but because of practicing unrepentant sins. On "ostraciztion," please don't put words into our mouths. We're already trying to straighten out so many untruths being told about us.


This misses the point and does not address the topic of holiness. I maintain that holiness is not a result of achieving anything other than accepting the love of Christ in trust and to live toward neighbor with the same love is, in act, holiness.

Of course every believer (no matter what their sins are) can live a holy life. But as followers of Christ we desire (and struggle) to fight against our sins daily, hourly. I use the term "sin pattern" because I see patterns of sin in my own life. They may not be the same as my neighbor. I struggle daily with the sin of selfishness (among others) and it never goes away. It's a daily battle and will never go away until I am in heaven. We all have crosses to bear. God is not democratic. Some peoples' crosses are heavier and more abundant than others.


First, what do you mean by the Bible?

I mean the inspired (not created) word of God. When we read all 66 books of the Bible as a whole, it becomes very clear who God, who Jesus is, and what he wants for his Church (his bride, modeled after God's creation ordinance). When I read the entire Bible as a Text I see how perfectly it is aligned. I have never seen it as disconnected. I also see the current situation of humanity on every page of the Bible. When I read the OT I'm always surprised at how relevant it is to today's world. I think much of today's problems stem from a lack of Bible reading. We should not be "verse-a-day" Christians. 

Ps. 86:12-13, and Eph 1:4-6 are just two references to "God is love." But it is clear that it means the God is love SO WE WILL GLORIFY HIM. God's love is not about US! It's about God turning us from SELF toward God. "God is love" does not mean "so let's just do what we want and he will be OK with it!"

I see the Gospel message as Jesus describes it (and how the Episcopal Church used to believe it). We are born in sin from Adam and Eve. We have no hope for communion with God, for God is holy and we are unable to be with him as sinners. We must pay a debt for our sins which we are unable to do. So God sent Jesus to do that for us. (page 869-870 of the Book of Common Prayer).


If one considers homosexuality a sin, I direct them to the Parable of the Wheat and the Weeds.

If one does not consider homosexuality a sin I direct them to the Bible.


My contention is that Paul's comments were NOT influenced by Christ.

This is why I say the schism was not about homosexuality. It is about belief in the Bible. I will not approach the Bible with eyes, heart, and mind ready to correct it or change it.


As I wrote, if one has to choose between what Christ teaches and what Paul teaches on matters surely you would agree that Christ's teachings are pre-eminent.

I see no difference in their teachings. In fact, I see no difference in any one teaching in the Bible and another. What I mean by "believe in the Bible," is what the BCP states on Pg 868 "Holy Scripture...of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church." That's what I was taught during my 25+ years in the Episcopal Church.


For example, when I "interrogate" the Bible, am I studying what the Scripture says in its own terms in its own circumstances? For example, large parts of the Bible (Leviticus, Exodus etc.) speak of the necessity of sacrificing animals which we rightly need not do anymore because of Christ's sacrifice on the Cross. Consider: in the synoptic gospels Jesus institutes Holy Communion but in the Gospel of John there is no institution of Holy Communion. So, I ask you in all sincerity, do you really "believe the Bible" in toto, or interpret it as necessity, or as others tell you to?

I believe every word of the Bible to be true. I'm afraid that many Christians read the Bible in sort of a verse-a-day manner. If read that way the Bible seems like a 1000 piece puzzle dumped out on the table: confusing, overwhelming, disconnected. But taking the time (many hours per day) to read the Bible word for word cover to cover over and over again is like putting that puzzle together. Once you do it you see the beauty and connectedness in it. You see Jesus on every page. You see yourself on every page. You see it is a living, inspired book, not a book created by man. It's absolutely amazing. It demands much respect that you would dare not correct it, doubt it. Wrestle with it, yes. But doubt it, never.


Once again, Paul is putting his interpretation on this situation. I do not deny it is there and must be dealt with, but Jesus' love "trumps" Paul's condemnations. If you agree with Paul that homosexuals deserve to die, I really do not know what to say to you.

I (we) absolutely do not believe they (or me, a sinner) needs to be put to death (i.e. executed)! Please believe that! What Paul is saying is what Jesus taught, that all of us sinners will die one day unless we repent of our sins. Repentance saves us from the death Paul is talking about. We're not talking about execution here! Every sinner's soul will die and live in Hell for eternity if we do not take Jesus' sacrifice for us personally. If we do, our souls will be saved from the death Paul is talking about. We will live forever in heaven with God and Jesus.


This assumes that homosexuals choose to be such.

We do not choose our sins. Satan does that. I do not choose my many, many sins I fight with every day. I agree, WE ARE BORN THAT WAY.


Anyone who does not allow others to become full members of God's Church persecutes them.

I agree. Fortunately, the DSC agrees with you as well. No one is denied membership to our church based on their sins. We would have empty pews if that were the case. But if someone denies their sins and chooses to cleave to their sins and make it their identity it would not be best for them to take on a leadership role in the church. We have homosexual leaders in the DSC who have repented of their sins and live in newness of life. It's not easy, but it's called dying to self, taking up your cross, and following Jesus. I struggle every day.


You missed my point. The issue, which you did not address, is whether the Kingdom belongs to the poor, etc., or to the privileged.

It belongs to every sinner (everyone) who repents and turns from their sins and follows Jesus. I hope it's not just for the privileged because, if so, I'm doomed. "Sin pattern" means the absolutely horrible people we are. We are detestable, disgusting, sinful, hateful, selfish, adulterers, liars, blasphemers, on an don unworthy of the love of God. But then there's Jesus, who rose from the grave on Easter morning! Alleluia!


Every person is entitled to their opinion no matter how it is represented to others in the field.

And I hope my opinion will not receive any thing less than the respect you demand, and deserve, for yourself.


Dear correspondent: I appreciate the opportunity your letter to Dr. Caldwell gave me to express my position in more detail. The peace of Christ be with you and all those you love until we all gather in the New Jerusalem.

Thank you as well. Sometimes I (and we/DSC) feel the persecution you speak of because of the many untruths that are believed about us. Please respect the fact that we have huge differences in or beliefs and that's why "I" cannot and will not return to TEC. I know you would agree that I should not be a part of a church who espouses beliefs I disagree with.

____________________________________


Again, I say "thank you" to the writer for contributing this response to the response. This clarifies the writer's thinking and beliefs about homosexuality and the church. These are two articulate spokespeople, one coming from the Episcopal Church side (Oct. 10, 13), and one from the Diocese of South Carolina side (Oct. 12, 14). Today's letter to this editor ends this four-part string of conversation between the two letter writers. I appreciate their participation as I appreciate that they followed the rules. 

I have received other letters to this editor; and I encourage everyone to add his or her two cents' worth. The recent topic has been homosexuality, but I invite reflections on all aspects of the schism. I am waiting to hear from you. Just follow the rules: courteous, respect views of others, keep it impersonal.


_______________________________________

You think it is hard to talk about God? You are not alone. See the opinion piece in the New York Times, Oct. 13, 2018, "It's Getting Harden to Talk About God." Find it here .

13 OCTOBER - A LETTER

TO THIS EDITOR

Yesterday, Oct. 12, I posted on this blog a letter to this editor which was a response to a letter of Oct. 10. Both writers asked for anonymity and I honored their requests. The two letters have sparked quite a reaction via email. The first writer (Oct. 10) has submitted a reply to the response (Oct. 12) that I am offering here. 

For the sake of time and space, I will give the Oct. 12 responses in italics and the Oct. 13 replies in regular type. I will leave out the text between quotes. Readers may refer to the original letters for the full text.

_______________________________________

Dear Dr. Caldwell:

I am pleased that my letter has received a response and I offer, in the spirit of informed debate, the following rebuttals (and a few happy agreements).

Why do you believe that excluding someone equals not loving them?

As I emphatically stated in my original comment, to exclude someone is the antithesis of Jesus' unequivocal teaching in the Gospels that all are included and none are excluded, unless they choose to be excluded. Original sin would be at work in them not to choose. This is clearly the teaching of the parables. 

Be careful quoting Freud if you are a religious person...What the Bible has to say on it is so much more valid than Freud.

Many of Freud's theories have been dropped, but his creation of the term "homosexual" is beneficial because it is non-judgmental. 

However, the church does need to deal with the truths of psychology because it is the lingua franca of many who have rejected those doctrines of the church that are incredulous and irrelevant to the realities of human experience in the days of cloning, technology, cosmology, physics, which religion, as in the time of Copernicus, at least in the main is not able to carry on a meaningful dialog.  I believe there are many and positive connections to be used to lift the Gospel up to non-believers. William Temple once said the church exists mostly for those lost ones who are not yet believers. I believe this.

As a member of DSC I can tell you that we do not believe this. We are all sinners in need of a savior.

If homosexuals are not given full acceptance, the DSC, presuming you speak for it (presuming I speak for all the TEC, which I do not claim) you are excluding others as not fit for full church membership; therefore it is exclusion. Perhaps ostracization would be a better term, though what is done is not far from persecution.

Yes! He made us, again, He made us male and female. It is not we ourselves, OR OUR SIN PATTERNS who make us or define us.

This misses the point and does not address the topic of holiness. I maintain that holiness is not a result of achieving anything other than accepting the love of Christ in trust and to live toward neighbor with the same love is, in fact, holiness. I do not understand the meaning of "sin pattern."

I believe conversion therapy can be very harmful. I also believe that the answer to homosexuality is NOT heterosexuality or marriage. There is nothing wrong with singleness. Singles are sometimes made to feel like second class citizens especially in the church and that needs to change.

I agree on this. However, I believe not all in the DSC would say so in public. I take it that you and/or the DSC believe that singleness is the only relational remedy for being homosexual. To deny others the option of loving whom they choose is as important as heterosexuals to choose their mates. To think otherwise is a matter of hypocrisy. At least the civil law does not deny them this right.

This paragraph shows much more about the reason the DSC left TEC than just homosexuality. It's about our belief that the Bible is true. This paragraph shows doubt about Paul's writings in the Bible. The Bible should be interrogating us rather than our interrogating it. That's the difference in TEC and DSC.

First, what do you mean by the Bible? There are sixty-six books in the Bible and many different theologies. Which ones shall we use in this sort of discussion and how do the different theologies connect with the current situation of humanity? You sidestepped my comment about God being love. Does one's theology include how homosexuality relates to the gospel? The argument I make hinges on the premise of "God is Love." How do you see the Gospel message in general?

As to current state of affairs intellectual honesty requires us to address human sexuality in depth as a church. Psychologists who deal in facts based upon experience and research recognize there to be a continium of sexuality; that human beings have a mixture male and female traits. This is well-known in the culture at large.

Original sin has to do with humanity's proclivity to avoid responsibility for its actions to protect our egos. This is well-known. The word "Sin" (capital S) refers to (among other things) the natural proclivity not to take responsibility for our lives. Little "s" sins are symptomatic of the larger problem of SIN. I am not sure what you mean by being born male or female is a function of original sin. Most of us have no real theological or Biblical education beyond Confirmation (sometimes called Conformation, which to me means nothing less, as the word implies, than indoctrination). Programs such as EFM can open one's mind to the text and teaching of the Bible on its own terms. When our laity are not exposed to the full sweep of Scripture they can be easily misled by narrow interpretations regarding certain important issues.

You ask why we have not executed cursers, adulterers, or homosexual people? I have some Good News. It's called the Gospel. Jesus paid that price for these sins and all our sins. Our debt (execution) is paid by Christ. But we must repent and turn from our sin. Luke 5:32 "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repent."

This misses the point. It is the hypocrisy of persecuting homosexuals without executing adulterers, and disobedient children, that the Bible says must be executed. Yes, we all must turn from sin, especially those who presume to exclude any persons made in God's image from fellowship in the body of Christ. If one considers homosexuality a sin, I direct them to the Parable of the Wheat and the Weeds.


This is not a good argument. The Gospels occurred before Paul's letters were written. So Paul's words were influenced by Christ...But He [Christ] does support the creation ordinance set out in Genesis when he talks about divorce and re-marriage, and adultery. He goes back to God's original plan for sexuality.

The events of the Gospels happened before the writing of Paul's letters, but the Gospels---Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John---were set down in writing after Paul's time. (First Thessalonians is the oldest book in the NT). As Paul says in the Book of Acts, he was not a disciple when Christ walked on earth. Though this may upset some persons, the historicity of the Gospels is an issue that is by no means settled among those true experts who know about these things. My contention is that Paul's comments were NOT influenced by Christ. How could they if Paul wasn't aware of Jesus' teaching on the matter! As stated, I believe Paul projected his own norms onto Greek culture unnecessarily keeping those who would believe in the freedom of Christ outside the fellowship of the Church.


Again, there is no ordinance in the Bible about sexual preference.

You may be missing my point. I am speaking of the relative importance of homosexuality with respect to the ancient Jewish requirement to be circumcised in the Chosen People.


This paragraph shows much more about the reason the DSC left TEC than just homosexuality. It's about the belief that the Bible is true. This paragraph shows doubt about Paul's writings in the Bible. The Bible should be interrogating us rather than our interrogating it. That's the difference in TEC and DSC.

My statement does not say the Bible is untrue. As above, I contend that the Bible should be read and studied carefully and fully. As I wrote, if one has to choose between what Christ teaches and what Paul teaches on matters surely you would agree that Christ's teachings are pre-eminent. I do not know what it means "to believe the Bible." What part or passage or verses can claim to include the whole teaching of the Bible?

For example, when I "interrogate" the Bible, am I studying what the Scripture says in its own terms in its own circumstances. For example: large parts of the Bible (Leviticus, Exodus, etc.) speak of the necessity of sacrificing animals which we rightly need not do anymore because of Christ's sacrifice on the Cross. Consider: in the synoptic gospels Jesus institutes Holy Communion but in the Gospel of John there is no institution of Holy Communion. So, I ask you in all sincerity, do you really "believe the Bible" in toto, or interpret it as necessity, or as others tell you to?


Really? The creation ordinance set forth by God in Genesis was for humans, made male and female. He included no other animals of creation in it.

Just because people of the ancient world expressed the creation of humanity in that way does not change the fact that in the week before humans were created God did in fact create all the animals.


Reading the baker story again, the baker did not deny the homosexual couple business. He said that if they wanted to order any other type of cake he would have made it for them...

"He said he just doesn't make cakes for holidays [weddings between same gender couples] he doesn't believe in." Though I hope all Christians respect Yom Kippur, we do not believe in it as such. So, if the baker is a Christian, I do not see how doing so is anything but is the same sin as excluding them as the Jews were excluded (in the extreme) during the time of their persecution in the previous century. I trust the un-Christian character of such a refusal is clear to all...and unsupportable.


Matthew 18:6 "But whoever causes one of these little ones who believes in me to sin it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea." Please be careful what you teach your children.

If you read this passage carefully without reading your own interpretation into it, within context, it is clear that Jesus is referring to those who would denigrate faith in Christ. The little ones are the helpless, powerless disciples.


Romans 1:32 "They know God's justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too."

Once again, Paul is putting his interpretation on this situation. I do not deny it is there and must be dealt with, but Jesus' love "trumps" Paul's condemnations. If you agree with Paul (underlined verse) that homosexuals deserve to die, I really do not know what to say to you.


Again, I believe conversion therapy can be vry harmful. We all, no matter what our sin pattern is that we were born with, need repentance and forgiveness. Not conversion therapy.

This assumes that homosexuals choose to be such. But as I wrote initially, why would anyone choose to be gay when they are excluded and persecuted because of their God-given bodies and drives. I agree that there are some who do not know themselves, who are confused about their sexuality, who may believe they are homosexuals, but may truly not be. This requires our welcoming into a loving community to help them figure this out.


Shame on anyone who persecutes another.

Anyone who does not allow others to become full members of God's Church persecutes them.


I believe making someone's sin pattern their identity is very demeaning and it's unbiblical.

You missed my point. The issue, which you did not address, is whether the Kingdom belongs to the poor, etc., or to the privileged. Again, I am not sure what "sin pattern" means.


We can't just gloss over our sins and get right to modeling Jesus. Our sins aren't just pesky things to sweep under the rug. They are evidences of Satan in our lives and he will not stop until he devours and destroys us.

Once again, you judge homosexuals to be sinners, which you have not demonstrated in your comments within the Gospel as articulated and lived by Christ. I consider the state of grace of these persons before God no differently than heterosexual persons.



Obviously, dear writer, we disagree on many issues, though we do agree on a few. I truly mean no offense. 

Every person is entitled to their opinion no matter how it is represented to others in the field.

Dear correspondent: I appreciate the opportunity your letter to Dr. Caldwell gave me to express my position in more detail. The peace of Christ be with you and all those you love until we all gather in the New Jerusalem.

______________________________________

I extend my "thank you" to the Oct. 10 writer for this reply to the Oct. 12 response. 

Perhaps you have noticed the same phenomenon as I. In public, people do not want to talk about homosexuality. In the past few weeks there have been three major opportunities for public discussion: Bp Adams "conversations," Bp Lawrence's tour, and TECSC's Facebook session. Very few questions or comments about homosexuality appeared in those public spaces. However, at least in my experience, in private it is the opposite. The overwhelming topic I get in emails and letters is homosexuality. This is why I think it is important that we talk about the subject on this blog. People will talk about it here online while they will not talk about it in person.

Why should we talk about homosexuality? Let me be clear. I do not think we should be talking about homosexuality per se. I think we should be talking directly about the church's interface with homosexual people. This was the direct cause of the schism in South Carolina (and the other four diocesan cases of secession). I believe it is still the underlying cause of the continued separation of the two parts of the old diocese. We should be honest about that. The theological/Biblical coating DSC has put on this is just that, a justifying wrapper around the true issue of equality for and inclusion of homosexual and transgendered people in the church.

As this issue is central to the schism and people prefer to talk about it online rather than in person, I think it is important that we keep up the conversation in this space, however painful it may be. God knows, we all know, how painful and destructive this schism has been. If there is any chance at all of reconciliation between the disaffected brothers and sisters, it has to be on some common ground on the subject of homosexuality. A complete separation on this issue dooms the two sides to permanent hostility. I am happy to provide the opportunity on my blog for everyone to express their opinions, as long as we all follow the rules I set out: courtesy, respect, and impersonal remarks.

Let me hear from you. 

12 OCTOBER - A LETTER 

TO THIS EDITOR

The letter to this editor that I posted on 10 October has received lively response. One letter in reply to it took issue with many of the individual statements in the first letter. This letter's writer chose to insert responses to the first letter's points. I will give the text of the Oct. 10 letter in italics and the responses of the Oct. 12 letter in regular type. I will also leave out much of the Oct. 10 letter's text between the remarks.

______________________________________

Dear Mr. Caldwell:

Please allow me to take a little of your time to address some of the comments in your recent blog from another reader. I am a member of a DSC church but I hope you will consider sharing this with your readers. I really feel like (from the recent letter you shared) that there is some misunderstanding by the TEC of the DSC's beliefs on the subject of homosexuality.

I understand that my comments are based solely on the Bible and that your readers may disagree on whether certain parts of the Bible are true or not. I think that's the basis for the split.

I hold this truth to be self-evident: "God is love." I believe this to be the greatest declaration of God's eternal nature. If thanksgiving is the best way to honor creation and all of God's blessings, then it is incumbent upon us to include all persons without regard to accidents of birth: race, religion, and yes, sexual preference.

The Bible does not acknowledge that we can prefer, or choose our gender. Genesis 1:27 "So God created human beings in his own image. In the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." Nothing about choosing our gender. Homosexuality is not a race or an accident of birth. It is the fruit of someone's sin pattern. Yes, a person is born "that way." We're all born "that way." It is called original sin.

When we exclude homosexuals from full participation in the Church, we are twisting the command to love others---all others.

Why do you believe that excluding someone equals not loving them?

I will use the term homosexual to characterize these persons rather than other terms which seem inflammatory. Freud coined this term because it was value neutral and non-judgmental.

Be careful quoting Freud is you are a religious person. Freud said that religion is "patently infantile so foreign to reality. It is painful to think that the great majority of men will never be able to rise above this view of life." My view of religion (and I believe the DSC's view) is very different than Freud's views so Freud's input on the subject is meaningless to me. What the Bible has to say on it is so much more valid than Freud.

Some believe that the church is a hospital for those who need the healing love of God.

I hope the writer does not believe that the members of the DSC disagree with this. We agree with you on this.

Others believe that a person must be holy to walk through the doors.

As a member of the DSC I can tell you that we do not believe this. We are all sinners in need of a savior.

There is truth in both, but humility must come first, else we have no reason to become the church. But I believe holiness is a direct result of humility and trust in God's loving kindness for all he has made. "It is he who hath made us, and not we ourselves."

Yes! He made us, again, He made us male and female. It is not we ourselves, OR OUR SIN PATTERNS who make us or define us!

It is self-evident that homosexual persons are a persecuted minority.

Shame on anyone who persecutes another.

They have been excluded from full participation in the church, murdered in purges, crucified on barbed-wire, clubbed, imprisoned, arrested, bullied to take drugs to counter their natural sexual drives and put through "conversion therapy." That the church does not defend these persons is one more cog in the grinding wheel of a sad history.

I believe conversion therapy can be very harmful. I also believe that the answer to homosexuality is NOT heterosexuality or marriage. There is nothing wrong with singleness. Singles are sometimes made to feel like second class citizens especially in the church and that needs to change.

To consider them perverts is to sin against God and neighbor.

I truly hope you don't believe the DSC wants to make anyone feel like a "pervert." I agree that would be a sin.

The parables amply illustrate a Kingdom which belongs to the persecuted and despised. These are the ones Jesus died on the cross to save. But by discriminating against homosexual persons, we violate the preeminent command to love.

I believe making someone's sin pattern their identity is very demeaning and it's unbiblical.

So, it seems homosexual relations are to receive the same punishment as the cursing of parents. Why have we broken the Lord's law by not executing smart-mouthed children and adulterers? I suspect it would be because there would be too few left to swing the axe.

You ask why we have not executed cursers, adulterers, or homosexual people? I have some Good News. It's called the Gospel. Jesus paid that price for these sins and all our sins. Our debt (execution) is paid by Christ. But we must repent and turn from our sin. Luke 5:32 "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repent."

But taking your sin and owning it, and making it your identity is far from repenting.

Consider further if you will: the genuine letters of St. Paul were written before the gospels. He condemns homosexuality, even to the point of declaring such persons will not enter the Kingdom. If I must choose between the two, surely the gospels containing Jesus' teachings will be of the first consideration. To believe that Jesus would condemn is an argument from silence. Given the welcoming nature of the Kingdom, it seems more likely they would be allowed as no more sinful than the rest of us who rely on God's compassion for wholeness.

This is not a good argument. The gospels occurred before Paul's letters were written. So Paul's words were influenced by Christ. Jesus never said "You shall not commit homosexual acts." But guess what? He never said "You shall not commit incest, or pedophilia, etc." So was He pro-incest? Pro-pedophile? Of course not! But He does support the creation ordinance set out in Genesis when he talks about divorce and re-marriage, and adultery. He goes back to God's original plan for sexuality.

Consider Paul, a Jew of Jews, who set aside the requirement for circumcision for Gentiles. Let that sink in. If Paul released that time-honored necessity, who are we to be overly concerned about ancient prohibitions about sexual preferences?

Again there is no ordinance in the Bible about sexual preference.


Paul could not but condemn homosexual relations because he seems to lack, at least in his letters, any understanding of the long-held Greek and Roman cultural practice of "mentorship" whereby an older mentor, educated as a boy as a son in the ways of his culture. Sexual relations were a part of this bonding, but it was a loving, exclusive relationship of learning (art, music, martial arts, philosophy, religion) until the young man was old enough to serve in the army.

This paragraph shows much more about the reason the DSC left TEC than just homosexuality. It's about our belief that the Bible is true. This paragraph shows doubt about Paul's writings in the Bible. The Bible should be interrogating us rather than our interrogating it. That's the difference in TEC and DSC.


Though we have become a fact-denying culture, it is well-known among zoologists that about ten percent of mammalian populations copulate with those of their sex.

Really? The creation ordinance set forth by God in Genesis was for humans, made male and female. He included no other animals of creation in it.



There are many who believe that so called conversion therapy will correct something which I, along with some who are expert in this field, treats something that does not need to be cured...

Again, I believe conversion therapy can be very harmful. We all, no matter what our sin pattern is that we were born with, need repentance and forgiveness. Not conversion therapy.


Recently a certain bakery would not serve a homosexual couple and could discriminate against them. If the past is any indicator, we might ask what group will be excluded next?

Reading the baker story again, the baker did not deny the homosexual couple business. He said that if they wanted to order any other type of cake he would have made it for them. He was happy to serve them. He said he just doesn't make cakes for holidays/celebrations he doesn't believe in. He said if a heterosexual person wanted him to make a Halloween cake he would deny that service to him because he doesn't make cakes for celebrations he doesn't believe in. That's why he won the case. The court said it was not discrimination.


But as followers of Christ, it would seem wise to err on the side of caution and patience. Do no harm. Leave the children alone to grow into their gender.

Matthew 18:6 "But whoever causes one of these little ones who believes in me to sin it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea." Please be careful what you teach your children.


This may involve them in some experimentation, which, if we are honest, has gone on for generations, among both men and women. And it will continue to be so. Experimentation does not mean certainty.

Romans 1:32 "They know God's justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too."


So, let's get on to something more useful than trying to figure out who is out and who is in and get on with modeling the peace and justice of Jesus Christ.

We can't just gloss over our sins and get right to modeling Jesus. Our sins aren't just pesky things to sweep under the rug. They are evidences of Satan in our lives and he will not stop until he devours and destroys us.



How we love others, all others, will be the true sign for us that God lives "in, with and under" us---and a sign to those we wish to embrace in Christ's name.

This is not the true Gospel although it may be your view of the Gospel.

_______________________________________

I say a big "thank you" to the writer for contributing these views and thoughts to this blog.

The issue of homosexuality was the direct cause of the schism. It is still very much on the minds of the people of the two parts of the old diocese. The two sides of the schism do not have to agree on an understanding of homosexuality, but they do have to recognize the role of this matter in the history of the schism. There is no use in ignoring the 800 pound gorilla in the room. That does not help. The 13,000 communicants in the 29 parishes are now left wondering what they will have to do in regards to rights for homosexuals in the church. As shown in the letter above, the DSC condemns homosexual behavior as sin. TEC does not have an official position on homosexual behavior, but has given a de facto recognition to its moral neutrality, inherently neither good not bad. TEC has agreed to equality for and inclusion of homosexuals and transgendered. However, TEC also allows anyone, clergy or laity, to refuse to accept or support homosexual rights. In fact, in the recent General Convention, a resolution was passed (B012) giving the local rector the right to deny same-sex weddings in his or her parish. In TEC, no one, clergy or laity, is required to support same-sex marriage.

The 13,000 communicants should rest assured that they may keep whatever views they have of homosexuality. They cannot, however, prevent others from holding and practicing views different than their own.

We have a great start now on a dialogue in this blog about the interface of homosexuality and the church. Let's keep the conversation going. We want to hear from you. Your voice is just as important as anyone's. I will omit your name if you wish. 

Since this is my blog, I get to set the rules for letters to this editor. As an old college professor, there is nothing I like better than a good, frank and honest exchange of ideas. It's what makes us grow and develop as thinking beings. However, while I welcome all views, I require everyone to adhere to these three rules:
1) maintain courtesy,
2) respect the ideas and expressions of others.
3) stick to ideas; no personal attacks.

Let me know what you think. Send your remarks to my email address above.  

10 OCTOBER --- LETTER TO THIS EDITOR

Today is Wednesday, October 10, and we have a new letter to this editor. It follows in the train of the recent letters; and so I am pleased to relay it now. 

_____________________________________

Dear Ron:

I hold this truth to be self-evident: "God is love." I believe this to be the greatest declaration of God's eternal nature. If thanksgiving is the best way to honor creation and all of God's blessings, then it is incumbent upon us to include all persons without regard to accidents of birth: race, religion, and yes, sexual preference. When we exclude homosexuals from full participation in the Church, we are twisting the command to love others---all others.

I will use the term homosexual to characterize these persons rather than other terms which seem inflammatory. Freud coined this term because it was value neutral and non-judgmental.

Some believe that the church is a hospital for those who need the healing love of God. Others believe that a person must be holy to walk through the doors. There is truth in both, but humility must come first, else we have no reason to become the church. But I believe holiness is a direct result of humility and trust in God's loving kindness for all he has made. "It is he who hath made us, and not we ourselves."

It is self-evident that homosexual persons are a persecuted minority. They have been excluded from full participation in the church, murdered in purges, crucified on barbed-wire, clubbed, imprisoned, arrested, bullied to take drugs to counter their natural sexual drives, and put through "conversion therapy." That the church does not defend these persons is one more cog in the grinding wheel of a sad history.

To consider them perverts is to sin against God and neighbor. It is a perverse attitude full-worthy of life-long repentance. Christ himself taught us that the despised and persecuted would be received first into the Kingdom. Those trusting in ego aggrandizement through wealth, power, prestige, fatuous rectitude, have fitted themselves well for hell. (Hell: a state of alienated; dividing the Body of Christ, cut off from others, and therefore, from God.)

Since time immemorial, the majority persecutes that which it does not understand. Perhaps lack of empathy, not fear, is the root of all evil?

Now, some have said about homosexuals, "We love the sinner but we hate the sin." This is a fatuous canard, for if sexuality is inherent in human nature (whether straight or gay) to hate the "sin" of homosexuality, is, ipso facto, to hate the sinner.

The parables amply illustrate a Kingdom which belongs to the persecuted and despised. These are the ones Jesus died on the cross to save. But by discriminating against homosexual persons, we violate the preeminent command to love.

No doubt some will quote Leviticus as a counter:

From Leviticus 20:

     "Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death...

If a  man commits adultery with another man's wife both the adulterer and the adultress are to be put to death...

If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Consider if you will:

Cursing parents: death.

Committing adultery: death.

Same sex intercourse: death.

So, it seems homosexual relations are to receive the same punishment as the cursing of parents. Why have we broken the Lord's law by not executing smart-mouthed children and adulterers? I suspect it would be because there would be too few left to swing the axe.

Further, homosexual relations in Levitical days did not result in the offspring which were needed to keep the nation thriving. To withdraw before ejaculation was prohibited for that reason. Hardly a problem now in a world of eight billion people.

Consider further if you will: the genuine letters of St. Paul were written before the gospels. He condemns homosexuality, even to the point of declaring such persons will not enter the Kingdom. If I must choose between the two, surely the gospels containing Jesus' teachings will be of the first consideration. To believe that Jesus would condemn is an argument from silence. Given the welcoming nature of the Kingdom, it seems more likely they would be allowed as no more sinful than the rest of us who rely on God's compassion for wholeness.

Consider Paul, a Jew of Jews, who set aside the requirement for circumcision for Gentiles. Let that sink in. If Paul released that time-honored necessity, who are we to be overly concerned about ancient prohibitions about sexual preferences?

Paul could not but condemn homosexual relations because he seems to lack, at least in his letters, any understanding of the long-held Greek and Roman cultural practice of "mentorship" whereby an older mentor, educated as a boy as a son in the ways of his culture. Sexual relations were a part of this bonding, but it was a loving, exclusive relationship of learning (art, music, martial arts, philosophy, religion) until the young man was old enough to serve in the army.

Further, the practice of mentorship was not gender specific, but rather class specific. It was frowned on in that culture to have sexual relations with a person of either sex who was not of a person's social class. It was a class, not a gender, issue. If Paul could forgo the necessity of circumcision, the problem of gender relations can hardly be considered of equal importance.

This was not a "perversion" but a culturally accepted norm. For this reason, Paul's admonishment, though congruent with his own Jewish upbringing, was nonetheless an attitude of what we call today cultural imperialism that acts which, taken together, have destroyed entire civilizations. Christ was not an imperialist, but his descendants have been.

Besides, what is such a practice compared to the command from Christ to love one's neighbor? The Parable of the Man who Fell Among Thieves makes it plain that anyone in need is our neighbor, and by implication, the one we despise, as a Samaritan, may well be Christ.

Though we have become a fact-denying culture, it is well-known among zoologists that about ten percent of mammalian populations copulate with those of their sex.

There are many who believe that so called conversion therapy will correct something which I, along with some who are expert in this field, treats something that does not need to be cured. But in a time when people who know things are denigrated because their careful research and training does not support the ill-informed opinions of well-meaning people, what can be expected?

So-called conversion therapy conveys the message that children are not normal and shameful in their being at their core. It is no wonder many, far above the average for their age, kill themselves. And if not choosing death, they suffer from a warped sense of self, often resulting in self-destructive behavior.

If someone is to be held accountable for the situation, it should not be the victims. If humanity is made in the image of God, should not God be held responsible? Unless, perhaps, some think such of the persecuted: Jews, Poles, Russians, those with birth defects, and homosexuals. There are echoes of Nazi racism here. Recently a certain bakery would not serve a homosexual couple and could discriminate against them. If the past is any indicator, we might ask what group will be excluded next?

Of course, we have not descended to such horrors yet, but recent events and the racism evident in the leadership of and in the body politic should give us pause.

But as followers of Christ, it would seem wise to err on the side of caution and patience. Do no harm. Leave the children alone to grow into their gender. This may involve them in some experimentation, which, if we are honest, has gone on for generations, among both men and women. And it will continue to be so. Experimentation does not mean certainty.

And lastly, why would anyone in their right mind choose to be homosexual when they are so roundly marginalized from the culture and excluded from full membership in God's church?

No doubt, some one will bring up the verse, "You shall be holy as I, the Lord your God, am holy." This verse, often misinterpreted, has little to do with being pure or moral, or following the rules. H.L. Menken once described such persons to be "Puritans who suspect that somewhere, someone may be happy."

It is the refuge of the cowardly to live by the rules at the expense of the total (and frightening) freedom that is ours in Christ. We are no longer children, but grown-ups.

Rightly does St. Paul counsel us to "work out your salvation with fear and trembling." The radical freedom God provides doesn't always play by the rules. And that's a good thing, for "If you, O Lord, should mark iniquities, who could stand upright before you."

To be holy means to love God with the totality of one's being and act toward others with the same regard. Holiness is a state of trust in the promises and love of God; such trust is what sets us apart. Besides, if we were to become holy, how would we know? Anyone who considers him or herself pure and holy---sanctified---surely is not so; not yet, anyway.

That's why homosexuals hold the high ground in this debate, and why the judgment of the culture is so ignorant, and church is so cruel.

If there was ever a class of people that needed to be saved from themselves it is those who judge homosexuals to be less than full members of the Kingdom of God and deny them the full measure of acceptance. It is for these that the Kingdom belongs.

So, let's get on to something more useful than trying to figure out who is out and who is in and get on with modeling the peace and justice of Jesus Christ.

How we love others, all others, will be the true sign for us that God lives "in, with and under" us---and a sign to those we wish to embrace in Christ's name.

____________________________________________

Thank you, writer, for contributing this thoughtful and well-written letter. It leaves us with much to ponder.

Reader, join the conversation. Your words are just as important as anyone's. Send your thoughts to the email address above. I will leave off your name if you wish. We all need to hear from you.

THE LAWYERS' RESPONSES

TO THE BRIEFS, 2nd edition

Judge Edgar Dickson, of the circuit court, directed the two sets of lawyers to submit briefs explaining their respective positions on 24 September. The lawyers did so. Each set of attorneys gave the judge three papers. See my blog post on this here .

The Episcopal Church and Episcopal Church in South Carolina attorneys filed briefs with Dickson requesting 1-execution of the South Carolina Supreme Court decision of August 2, 2017; 2-dismissal of the Diocese of South Carolina's Betterments lawsuit; and 3-appointment of an accounting firm to conduct an accounting of the DSC assets since 2008. The essential argument of the Church side was that the state supreme court decision was clear and final and that the circuit court had no choice but to enforce the decision.

The DSC attorneys submitted three briefs, 1-for designation of complex case; 2-for clarification and relief; and 3-supplement to # 2. Their core argument was that the SCSC decision was not enforceable due to its conflicted and ambiguous nature; and therefore the circuit court must decide the essential issues at hand.

According to Dickson's schedule, the two sets of lawyers were to submit their responses to the briefs on 5 October. The DSC attorneys turned in their three responses on 5 October. The TEC/TECSC lawyers submitted their two responses on 5 and 8 October. All of the responses were posted on the SC courts website.

The DSC responses focused on TEC/TECSC's first brief, for execution of the SCSC decision. Once again, the DSC lawyers insisted the SCSC decision was unclear, ambiguous, and indecisive. They spent a good deal of time on the issue of the parish property claiming that Chief Justice Beatty declared that a trust could be created only by an express written agreement. The lawyers concluded that the SCSC "left the factual issue of parish agreement to the Dennis Canon to this Court."

In another response, the DSC attorneys argued that an accounting was not possible because the SCSC decision did not find a breach of trust.

In a third response, DSC lawyers presented a lengthy (21 p.) argument supporting their Betterments suit and rejecting TEC/TECSC's motion to dismiss it. In this, they claimed that the SCSC did not recognize that the 29 parishes were owned in trust by TEC and TECSC. They asserted "Further fact-finding is necessary to decide the application of the Collective Opinions [Aug. 2 SCSC decision] to current property ownership and title and to the particular properties at issue." 

The TEC/TECSC lawyers' responses were the same case they have made all along before Dickson, that the SCSC decision was final. The SCSC denied a rehearing, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied cert. Moreover, the SCSC issued a "remit" to the circuit court to enforce the Aug. 2 decision. According to these lawyers, the circuit court has no choice but to carry out the SCSC decision. It cannot re-litigate the decision.

The Church lawyers also filed an opposition to DSC's petition for complex case designation. They said the Betterments suit should be dismissed. That would make the complex case designation a moot point. 

In review, one can see that TEC's position has remained exactly the same for nearly a year now, since the remittitur of Nov. 19, 2017: the SCSC decision of Aug. 2, 2017 must be enforced by the circuit court. 

An interesting ploy of the DSC lawyers in last Friday's responses was to move Beatty to the pivotal point of the SCSC decision. They claimed Beatty sided with Toal in insisting the Dennis Canon had no validity until acceded to in writing by the individual parishes. This is correct as per Beatty's opinion in the SCSC decision. However, the lawyers conveniently left out Beatty's concluding statement:  "I agree with the majority as to the disposition of the remaining [29] parishes because their express accession to the Dennis Canon was sufficient to create an irrevocable trust." (p. 37-38). Thus, Beatty said clearly that the 29 parishes had indeed acceded to the Dennis Canon, and this accession could not be revoked. Thus, the DSC lawyers were wrong to assert that Beatty did not rule on the validity of the Dennis Canon. In fact, he joined the majority of the justices in ruling that the 29 parishes had acceded to the Dennis Canon. Indeed, in her summary of the decision on the last page, former chief justice Jean Toal wrote:  "Chief Justice Beatty would do so because he believes all but eight of the plaintiffs acceded to the Dennis Canon in a manner recognizable under South Carolina trust law."

It seems to me DSC's claim that the SCSC decision cannot be enforced because it is unclear is entirely wrong. In fact, the decision is expressly clear. Returning to the last page (77) of the decision we read Toal's summary:

1) with regard to the eight church organizations which did not accede to the Dennis Canon, Chief Justice Beatty, Justice Kittredge, and I would hold that title remains in the eight plaintiff church organizations; 2) with regard to the twenty-eight church organizations which acceded to the Dennis Canon, a majority consisting of Chief Justice Beatty, Justice Hearn, and Acting Justice Pleicones would hold that a trust in favor of the national church is imposed on the property and therefore, title is in the national church; and 3) with regard to Camp St. Christopher, Chief Justice Beatty, Justice Hearn, and Acting Justice Pleicones would hold title is in the trustee corporation for the benefit of the associated diocese, whereas Justice Kittredge and I would hold that the trustee corporation holds title for the benefit of the disassociated diocese.


What now? Judge Dickson has asked the two sets of lawyers to submit their replies to the responses on Friday, 12 October. This will make the fifth iteration of the lawyers' cases before Judge Dickson (the motions/petitions, the lists, the briefs, the responses, and the replies to the responses). Let us hope the judge is satisfied with these five rounds. He has mentioned that he expects to hold a hearing on all this during the weeks of October 22 and 29. I am sure everyone will agree, enough already. Let's have some resolution. I fully expect Dickson to enforce the SCSC decision. That will mean he will sweep aside the DSC arguments as improper and/or irrelevant. The SCSC decision will be enforced. The 29 parishes will be returned to the authority of the Episcopal Church diocese.

8 OCTOBER --- NOTES 

and A LETTER TO THIS EDITOR

In case you have been wondering, I have been away for awhile on vacation without access to a computer. I have just returned home and am ready to resume making my blog entries. There is catching up to do.  

The two groups of lawyers have turned in their responses as per Judge Dickson's request. They have been posted on the state court website. The DSC lawyers submitted two responses on Friday, October 5. The Church lawyers turned in their response today at 10:10 a.m. I will return shortly with remarks on these new papers as soon as I have had a chance to study them.

While away, I also received a letter to this editor that I would like to present here. It continues the conversation of September 24-25.

______________________________________________

Dear Ron,

I am grateful for the thoroughness of the responses (posted on September 25th) to my letter that was posted on September 24th. The purpose in my letter was simply to correct an oversimplification of my diocese's position in a complex debate. The two responses make the case that my position, after having been clarified, is still wrong. Although I generally agree with my diocese's teaching on sexuality, I need to do more study of the scientific and theological issues involved, before writing a defense. Of course, I have thought about the issue for years, but thorough study is needed. I know of at least four books on the subject that I need to read carefully. My study will also include recognition of the blessings that can occur within homosexual marriages, such as those attested by the two response letters.

In reading the second response letter, I can see one further point for clarification. I think my diocese's teachings do not "impose celibacy on lesbian and gay Christians." We now have much greater freedom to disregard church teachings on sexuality than we had 20 years ago. I regard this as a salutary development.

Speaking for myself and not my diocese, I think the legalization of homosexual marriage providentially pushes the church to rethink its role in society. The church's job is not to use state law to force people to do right. Rather, the church should point people to God's law, so that they can voluntarily apply it to themselves. Of course, as citizens, Christians may vote for state laws on moral issues, but they should be cautious in doing so. Freedom from sin follows from the Spirit's work in individual hearts, not from us trying to compel good behavior in others.

Yours, Sam Dargan

_________________________________________

Our thanks to Sam Dargan for this letter, in response to the responses to his original letter. I am waiting to hear from you, reader. Send remarks to my email address above.