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.
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.
