JULY 6 - LETTERS TO THIS EDITOR
The "Letters to This Editor" feature on this blog has turned out to be amazingly popular. So far, 4,700 people have accessed these letters in just the few days they have been online. They have made the rounds on Facebook and probably on other social platforms. I am delighted that so many people have found them of interest.
Today we have two letters. The first is not brand new. I have had it for a few weeks waiting to see if it would appear in another venue. It has not. The Charleston Post and Courier is quick to publish pieces critical of the Episcopal Church but very slow to offer anything favorable to the Church. (Hint---watch out for letters to the editor in Saturday's paper). The letter here is outstanding and should be offered to everyone to read, so I will do just that:
_____________________________________
Letter to the editor.
While I could not agree more that it is a shame that congregations have had to endure years of uncertainty and anguish ("No 'winners' in bitter Episcopal church dispute" [Post and Courier, June 13, 2018]), that is precisely why the Episcopal Church offered each congregation the opportunity to retain its property prior to the matter being argued at the South Carolina Supreme Court. The offer was called "spurious" and was summarily rejected by the breakaways. Throughout the course of this unfortunate matter, the Bishop of the Episcopal Church in South Carolina (affiliated with the Episcopal Church) has constantly spoken and written of reconciliation. One would be hard pressed to find any mention of reconciliation from the breakaways; in fact, leadership of the breakaways have already undermined and rejected any reconciliation efforts.
By declining to hear the matter, the U.S. Supreme Court did take a stand on freedom of conscience and the value of worshipping in a community of shared beliefs. For years before the schism, the breakaway congregations governed themselves pursuant to the requirements of the Episcopal Church, which requires real property to be held in trust for the local diocese of the Episcopal Church. Thousands of loyal Episcopalians observed those rules; what is to become of their legacy and the sacrifices they made to the religious tradition and affiliation they observed, held dear, and expected to continue?
The ruling by the South Carolina Supreme Court is consistent with rulings in North Carolina, New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, California, Virginia, Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, Tennessee, Wisconsin and Georgia. To suggest that the South Carolina Supreme Court's ruling is surprising or an outlier ignores the legal history and precedent of such disputes.
The Free Exercise of religion ensures that religious organizations can create and govern themselves as they see fit, and also ensures that we as a people can decide, and not be interfered with, whether we believe in one God, or many, or none at all, whether we eat meat and cheese together, whether we drink wine or grape juice at communion, or whether we take communion at all. To some, the rules of governance of religious organizations seem peculiar and nonsensical. Others may find dripping water on an infant's head as a symbol of religious birth equally as peculiar and nonsensical. Nevertheless, holding such sincere beliefs, free of government interference, is one of our most fundamental rights as Americans.
The true threat to religious freedom would have been if the South Carolina Supreme Court or the United States Supreme Court had ruled differently.
J.P. Lee
________________________________________
Once again, Bravo! Bravo! to Mr. Lee and many thanks for these words of wisdom.
________________________________________
________________________________________
The next letter to this editor refers to a letter in the Post and Courier of June 28, "No Shared Beliefs," by Susanne L. Lemke:
________________________________________
The misunderstanding Susanne Lemke has of the scriptures she quoted in John I believe is due to a lack of understanding of the dual nature of Jesus. Before all else Jesus is the Word of God. "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among man." In the language of the computer age we might say Jesus was an email from God to humanity declaring us God's plan of salvation. We know that email as the gospel message and it is easily read in any red letter edition of the four gospels. So, when Jesus says no one comes to the Father but through me, we must remain open to the possibility (I think probability) that he is referring to "I the Gospel email" and not just the flesh and blood incarnation we call Jesus. So, yes, former P.B. Katharine is absolutely correct. God may very well have ways of communicating that gospel message to those who are not as fortunate as we, who have had the opportunity to experience it through a personal knowledge of and relationship with the flesh and blood form of Jesus. To deny that God may choose to do that is indeed confining him to a box limited by human understanding, unworthy of comparison to his infinite power and wisdom.
Steve Price
___________________________________
And another big "thank you" to Steve Price for this thoughtful insight. All of us have something to say about the schism. And, I will guarantee you there is a big audience out there waiting to read what you have to say. They want to hear from you. Send me your thoughts:
________________________________________
________________________________________
The next letter to this editor refers to a letter in the Post and Courier of June 28, "No Shared Beliefs," by Susanne L. Lemke:
________________________________________
The misunderstanding Susanne Lemke has of the scriptures she quoted in John I believe is due to a lack of understanding of the dual nature of Jesus. Before all else Jesus is the Word of God. "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among man." In the language of the computer age we might say Jesus was an email from God to humanity declaring us God's plan of salvation. We know that email as the gospel message and it is easily read in any red letter edition of the four gospels. So, when Jesus says no one comes to the Father but through me, we must remain open to the possibility (I think probability) that he is referring to "I the Gospel email" and not just the flesh and blood incarnation we call Jesus. So, yes, former P.B. Katharine is absolutely correct. God may very well have ways of communicating that gospel message to those who are not as fortunate as we, who have had the opportunity to experience it through a personal knowledge of and relationship with the flesh and blood form of Jesus. To deny that God may choose to do that is indeed confining him to a box limited by human understanding, unworthy of comparison to his infinite power and wisdom.
Steve Price
___________________________________
And another big "thank you" to Steve Price for this thoughtful insight. All of us have something to say about the schism. And, I will guarantee you there is a big audience out there waiting to read what you have to say. They want to hear from you. Send me your thoughts:
ronaldcaldwell1210@gmail.com
