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 .
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 .
