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.
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.
