In the next few weeks, the eyes of the Anglican Communion will focus intently on the 2009 General Convention. 

The great question before the Convention, as it was in 2006,  is how its decisions will determine the course of The Episcopal Church’s relationship with the Anglican Communion and the Church universal.  And once again, this question is itself expressed in the form of questions about human sexuality, and, in particular, about the role of non-celibate same-sex relationships within the Church.

The official position of the Anglican Communion, affirmed repeatedly since 1998, is found in Lambeth Conference Resolution 1998.1.10, which states:

“while rejecting homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture, calls on all our people to minister pastorally and sensitively to all irrespective of sexual orientation and to condemn irrational fear of homosexuals, violence within marriage and any trivialisation and commercialisation of sex;
cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions….”

The pressure on the bishops and deputies constituting General Convention 2009 arises from the reality that they constitute, as well, a microcosm of our American culture, and our American culture is divided on the presenting questions about human sexuality.  Yet those who control the political machinery of The Episcopal Church seem united in their belief that the official teaching of the Anglican Communion is wrong. It seems possible that General Convention 2009 may pass resolutions committing the Episcopal Church to positions that contradict the teaching of the Communion.

This presenting question is one of those troublesome ones that historically polarize communities.  A large part of that polarizing effect has to do with different approaches to ethics.

Some believe that ethics is a matter of when to say “Yes” and when to say “No.”  Sometimes saying “No” to the claims of others about important matters seems to be the way to security.  This is the way of the Essene sect of ancient Israel who rejected the apostasy of those who controlled the Temple at Jerusalem and formed a monastic community near the Dead Sea.  It’s been the way of many groups throughout Christian history, and, most recently, it is the approach chosen by conservatives who departed the Episcopal Church to form the new Anglican Church in North America (ACNA).

Another approach is not to reject the difficult claims of others outright but rather to ask, “if what you claim about human sexuality is true, then what are we supposed to do about it?”  That is, some assume that it is up to us to figure out the single right thing that we are to do with the reality of same-sex affinities, as though, if only we could figure the single purpose of such affinities, we could then do that one right thing.  Some such arguments, presented by both liberals and conservatives, are masked in Christian language but are in fact grounded in Stoic premises about natural law, and thus scarcely warrant the designation, ”Christian.“

For some, that one right thing is to embrace same-sex relationships throughout our culture as equivalent to heterosexual relationships.  For others, that one right thing necessarily finds a welcoming place for such relationships within our culture but maintains the uniqueness of what Christians know as Holy Marriage.

But there is a third approach to Christian ethics.  This approach does not assume that our ethical task is to say ”Yes“ or ”No“ to the claims of others; neither does it assume that our task is to find that one right purpose for each of the mysteries of creation in order to make creation turn out right. 

Our task, rather, is to transform the fate of the lost and disconnected gifts of creation we encounter in our lifetime into a destiny consistent with the destiny of all creation that is revealed in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah.  We must struggle to understand them within the story of God.  This approach asks neither, ”Is same-sex affinity good or evil?“ nor ”what’s the single right purpose of this affinity that we find in nature?“  Rather, it asks, ”how can we understand this mystery in a faithful way?  How can we see this affinity as a gift through which God blesses the Church so that the Church is the blessing to all the nations she is intended to be?“  It sees the goodness of God as the only given and seeks to understand all things in that light.[[Wells, Samuel. “Incorporating Gifts” in Improvisation : The Drama of Christian Ethics. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Brazos Press, 2004.]]

In other words, the ethical questions before our bishops and deputies are less about the reality of same-sex affinities themselves than they are about how such mysteries fit into the great drama of how God nurtures and sustains his people.

These are difficult questions that are intrinsically part of our life together.  We can’t avoid them by shutting down the conversation or by talking of other things.  We must face them.

Let us therefore bathe our bishops and deputies in prayer as they gather in Anaheim to answer them.

View the original post

Hi Craig,

What an interesting way to pose the ethical question.  It would seem to me that this is the approach Christ took in the Gospels.  As I read them, I see Christ being far less concerned with what is right or wrong (not to say He was unconcerned) and far more concerned with how God’s love and God’s glory could be manifested for the world.

If it were possible for persons to change their sexual orientation, then there might be some warrant to the Church endeavoring to make that transformation possible.  That would certainly manifest God’s glory to the world.  However, the vast, vast, vast amount of data, both empirically and anecdotally, indicates that sexual orientation does not change and cannot be changed.  “Ex-gay” ministries have more “ex-ex-gays” than “ex-gays” in them.  All of the professional medical and social work boards agree that reparative therapy is not only ineffective but also unethical.

So, then, how might God’s glory be manifested in the Church’s relationship with gays and lesbians?  There are a few possibilities, not all of which are equally valuable.  The first would be to continue to persecute gays and lesbians by advocating for national laws that restrict our freedoms and even endanger our lives.  Some would argue that this is “snuffing out an evil”.  But does this manifest God’s glory?

The other would be to require celibacy for all gays and lesbians, which is in essence putting us in a closet and saying, “We’re not sure what to do with you, so just stay here and don’t make a fuss.”  There might even be a bit of “wink, wink, nudge, nudge” about the reality of that celibacy.  Gays and lesbians would have our “friends” and no questions would be asked.  Does this manifest God’s glory?

The final alternative is for the Church to recognize that monogamous, lifelong committed same-gendered relationships CAN manifest God’s glory through the transformative power those relationships have on the couple, the gay and lesbian community, the community at large and the world.  By providing a means by which gays and lesbians can have committed relationships blessed by the Church and then by insisting that ONLY such relationships are sanctioned by God (as with marriage), the Church provides a way for gays and lesbians to obey St. Paul’s commandment to “marry rather than burn” for those not called to celibacy.  It also transforms the gay and lesbian community by showing that community that the Church is not out to persecute us, is not out to extinguish us from off the face of the earth or to hide us away in our closets once again.  But neither is the Church simply going to condone an “anything goes” lifestyle.  The Church gives the message to the gay and lesbian community that commitment, faithfulness and intimacy are core values.  Finally, the Church also shares a message with the world that gay and lesbian people are not sub-human and therefore open for persecution, ridicule, abuse and even murder.  Does this manifest God’s glory?

In Christ,
Shawn

Mr. Strout:

I think it would be wise and in the interest of accuracy that when you cite statistics and medical data and empirical studies, that you also please cite the source.  Of course, (and I have been reading this site since January 2009) we know where you stand.  At such, as as Father Weir appropriately stated, most positions are partisan.  Perhaps the only place where positions have a license for imagination is in scripture and the church’s authority and what it considers scriptural authority.  The questions posed in this thread and the strife in the midst of this debate are born from the conflict in scriptural authority NOT in empirical evidence.  If, however, empirical evidence is to be entered into the convesation, then I believe it should be done so with the same truth requirements as when we bring scripture.  That is, I can’t says, “purple people with one eye and three arms ate soda crackers and coca-cola at the last supper,” and similarly, empirical data that does not exist should not be entered into this conversation.

So, unless you are a trained physician, scientist and researcher or are citing the journal, page number and study conducted, then it is best to keep the church’s scriptural authority and the imagination and freedom that affords you at the fore.  This is not to say that empirical data is not welcomed or that what happens in the real world is not important, but it is to say that when empirical data is brought into the conversation, it should respect and pass the same level of credibility and accuracy that scriptural authority and its accuracy has passed for thousands of years.

If that is possible; that is, as I said in my earlier post in response to Dr. Tait’s question to me - when reason divorces the flesh, law and scriptural authority, truth becomes offensive. 

People murder, ridicule, persecute and make people sub-human for many reasons.  That does not condone one behavior over another.  I think this conversation is fascinating, but I would request only one thing (and hope the absence of it is noted):  one very educated contributer said that he would WELCOME statistics that show that church’s who agree that same-sex marriages are sanctioned by God enjoy membership growth and attract people.  Your stand has always been that a church that blesses same-sex marriages and sodomy as a behavior God loves and sanctions will welcome even more people if we just all sit around and agree that it’s okay and stop fighting over it.

1).  When making those conclusions, please (as other people have so laboriously done) bring the statistics that show the membership.
2).  When making conclusions that that data show there is no physical danger and it’s all in our imagination, please cite those sources. 

In this manner, perhaps, the conversation may be more ethical?

Hi Cristina,

1.  Regarding reparative therapy, here is information on wikipedia which can lead you to further studies.  It also cites the organizations that do not accept reparative therapy as a valid therapeutic intervention:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reparative_therapy

2.  Here is a peer-reviewed article of a study showing that not only did reparative therapy not work, the participants reported spiritual harm.  Unfortunately, I think you have to purchase the article to see its entire contents:  http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=13693343  The wikipedia article also states studies.

As for statistics showing improvement in membership for churches that approve of same-sex marriages, the only organization that I am aware of that fully endorses same-sex marriage is the Unitarian Universalist Association.  (I and they don’t claim them to be “a church”.)  They are the only “mainline denomination” to experience growth over the past several years:  http://www.uuworld.org/news/articles/142420.shtml

However, you are certainly right that we have to be cautious in citing studies, especially in the behavioral sciences.  I have an MA in Professional Counseling, and we are taught to read studies carefully for the methodology used, e.g. sample size, sample demographics, qualitative vs. quantitative methods, validity and reliability of any instruments used, etc.  Statistics and polls are even more dubious.

Nonetheless, I stand by what I have said.  Reparative therapy is not a viable alternative for changing homosexual orientation.

In Christ,
Shawn

Mr. Strout:

I just posted the post you responded to ABOUT FIVE MINUTES AGO.  Was your empirical data that in-depth?  Is the entire Word contingent on Wikipedia?  You cite Wikipedia?  With all of the talk right now in politics in the gay community pushing for legalization of gay marriage, you cite wikipedia?  If the entire world were pushing against, or vetting the gay community’s stance, perhaps it may be more accurate, but right now, with the political push FOR gay marriage, I doubt it will be neutral.

I applaud an MA in Professional Counseling, but I wonder if that makes you a neutral scientist.  An MA in professional licensing does not permit the injection of Christ, scriptural authority or God.  So, in that manner, I wonder if your perspectives (based on your very powerful stand in favor of same sex activity and marriages) clouds the objectivity a scientist should have?

I have to go back to work.  Your pose, does not close for me and I most certainly hope it doesn’t close it for the hundreds (if not thousands) of people that read Covenant-Communion.net and read your powerful posts in favor of same sexual activity and marriage.

And herein lies the conundrum - the speed of gravity and the chemical composition of plastic is not the church’s vocation.  Scriptural authority and God-breathed words, however, are.  Psychology, Psychiatry and Science are often very much in conflict with scriptural authority and the wisdom of God through the ages.

Indeed, there were years where woman who talked too much (just a little bit over 50 years ago) had pieces of their brain cut out.  Psychology and Pyschiatry and Counseling are secular activities. 

And, as Mr. Uffman posted on this thread - Lambeth Conference Resolution 1998.1.10, states, “while rejecting homosexual practice as incompatible with scripture calls on to minister pastorally and sensitively”

I doubt this means turning over scripture to science and a science (psychology) that was born and feeds and is often supported by financial support, personal convictions and not scriptural authority.

As such, I personally believe that the work of the church is waiting and calling for us and being tacked down, especially on a site as potentially powerful as this one, where great minds gather to share the best ideas and thoughts and STRATEGY on how to share the gospel with the broken, perhaps a break, a painful break, a clear stand, a STRATEGY and response to deal with these personal opinions (that are contrary to scriptural authority) may be the best way to lubricate the parched bones of the Episcopal and Anglican Churches.

In that way, perhaps, the ethics of a church’s manganimous entering into a conversation will not be taken advantage of?

Hi Kristina (or do you prefer Ms. Molina?),

I agree with you completely that quoting studies back and forth is not going to prove anything.  I personally do not believe in the myth of objectivity.  None of us is objective.  We all bring our biases with us in whatever we are conducting.  Scientists bring their biases when they conduct experiments and studies.  Academic institutions bring their biases in when they decide which studies to fund and which not to fund.  Journalists bring their biases in when they write a story.  Editors bring their biases in when they decide which stories to run and which not to run.  Bias is a part of our lives.  They only remedy is to try to get as many voices heard as possible.

You quoted Resolution 1.10.  I really must admit that I am surprised conservatives are not calling for it to be included in the next version of the Prayer Book.  It seems to have reached near canonical status. (I’m being sarcastic.)  Part of that resolution also calls for a listening process.  However, it is hard to listen to people when they are excluded from the assembly like Bishop Robinson was from the last Lambeth Conference.  That would have been a great opportunity for the bishops of the Anglican Communion to engage in the listening process, but Archbishop Williams preferred the political alternative, which ended up not doing much good anyway.

The reality of the situation is that we gays and lesbians are not going anywhere.  The question before the Church is how will the Church respond to gay and lesbian people that best glorifies God?  The options as I see it are

1. continued persecution
2. continued silencing
3. tolerance
4. acceptance and blessing

I’m open to other suggestions, but those appear to be the only options I see.

In Christ,
Shawn

Mr. Strout:

I am amazed at how assiduously you monitor posts on this website. 

I am willing to lay down my life for the fact that nobody will ever find a truthfully and ethically done study that will document that sticking a penis in feces does not cause disease.  Disease was never Jesus’ plan for man. Our Lord and Saviour said: “I came so that you can have life and have life abundantly.”

Salvation, is another matter.

Silencing sin in a church is EXACTLY the church’s vocation.  Actually, Mr. Strout - pounding it out, with the blood of Christ and the word of Christ is closer to its vocation.  The pews every Sunday morning are lined with hypocrites and liars and thieves.  These activities all run contrary to scripture.  That’s why we’re there. 

#5:  Say it’s wrong and move on to the word of Christ. 
#6:  Ask the gay and lesbian community to “leave the church alone” by trying to turn it’s scriptural authority upside down.

Jesus is about so much more than sex Mr. Strout, but sexual sin comes with a heavy price.  “No other sin corrupts the body more than this one.”  So, as in Lawson v. Texas, that made sodomy legal in Texasin the 1980’s under the “right to be left alone,” because you own your own body and can do what you want with it.  “All things are permissible, but not all things lift up,” I would also argue the church has a right to be left alone by people who want to tell it what to do about tradition and scripture that govern a 2,000+ year old institution and rewrite God-breathed words, distracting it from the true work of Christ.

I would say the same thing to a racist.  I would say the same thing to a thief.  I would say the same thing to myself when I hold on to a grudge and miss the mark.

Healing (as you call it - reparation) is the work of the Spirit.

No, Mr. Strout, you are absolutely right about one thing - gays and lesbians aren’t going anywhere!

#8: When a gay and a lesbian try to tell the church it is scripturally supported, the pastor/priest/CHRISTIAN counselor should sit down and listen carefully about the person’s life and read scripture and all of the verses that say “NO.”  “S” “T” “O” “P” right there.  “There is a way that seems right to man, but that in the end, leads to death.”  And list and cite the ABUNDANT scripture God has provided to us that makes that behavior wrong.

#9: Love them just the way they are and stop obsessing over sex in the church and work on the other parts of scripture that are far more important.
#10:  Pray for them

I own my own company and work from home, so I can permit myself these stops in work.  I do, however, have to get back to work.  I am sure there will always be an argument back as to why it is okay.  One of my closest friends was quite promiscuous, of course, until she contracted two venereal diseases and then God was there.  Using a woman’s sin to sanction homosexuality is a weak, weak argument.

I must be going now Mr. Strout.  “We all fall short of the glory of God,” Mr. Strout.

Hi Kristina,

Well, I’m definitely seeing option 1….continue persecuting gays and lesbians in your response.  You did offer another option which is leave the Church entirely.  Again, not sure either of these glorify God.

I’m not sure our continued dialogue is going to be productive, so I’m bowing out.

In Christ,
Shawn

No, Mr. Strout, you are wrong.

I CLEARLY SAID: “just as the gay community has a right to do what it wants with their OWN BODIES, PROTECTED UNDER THE RIGHT TO BE LEFT ALONE WITHOUT PEOPLE DAMNING THEM AS SINFUL, LUNATIC OR FULL OF HATRED, is the SAME WAY that the CHURCH has a right to govern itself and spread the gospel WITHOUT PEOPLE WITH A PRIVATE AGENDA asking a thousand year old institution to CALL THE BODY OF SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION AND THE BODY OF THE CHURCH HATEFUL, SINFUL, LUNATIC AND FULL OF HATRED.”

I HAVE HEARD THE WORK LUNATIC USED HERE QUITE OFTEN.

If you wish to read into that persecution and asking you to leave the church -  that’s your prerogative, not mine.  I was citing Lawson v. Texas.  You go into your house and do whatever you want.

You come into God’s house and that just happens to be HIS house.

Authority in Scripture is authority in Scripture.  You have your body.  The Church has its body. 

Truth is not persecution, unless, of course, you are Jesus Christ.  And there’s only one of HIM.

That is what I said.

Ms. Molina:

It is not necessary to be so angry (post #8), nor is it necessary to refer to same-sex activity in such crude and uncouth words (post #6). I think it fair to point out that this serves to severely diminish your credibility and sincerity in this discussion. 

I do not mean to be condescending (as I have been guilty of the same offense in the past).  I’m just making an observation.

Mr. Thomas:

Anger is not what I feel; urgency in the posting of an accusation, is.  The capital letters are for emphasis.  I CANNOT imagine how an entire pastoral staff at Covenant-Communion.net and the hundreds (if not thousands) of viewers and contributers catering and serving and quietly and patiently performing intellectual acrobatics for Mr. Strout’s stream of pro-sexual-activity and marriage is anything other than loving.  When reason divorces the reality of a situation (calling truth persecution) is a

Calling things my the right names, may very well be the beginning of wisdom.  The bible itself notes, “Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.”  Calling things by the wrong names is not an ETHICAL thing to do.  This post was an invitation to speak about the ETHICS of the subject matter at hand.

I shall repeat myself, again:  Just as you have the right to do whatever you want with your body without being called a lunatic (yes, Mr. Wirrell’s memory is full of insults and name-calling from you and Mr. Strout) the entire Christian community ALSO has the RIGHT to request the same respect. 

BUT EVEN FURTHER THAN THAT - Because this is an institution built NOT ONLY on Christ’s blood (He himself said he did not come to do away with the law, but to fulfill it) but on the Law, this does give people a license to miss the mark and ask that very same institution to lie.  Because Christ did NOT come to do away with the law, but to fulfill it.  And love does not absolve people of duties, responsibilities, natural law or anything else.

So, if you wish to read in to this hatred or ANGER, that is again, your choice. 

God reserves the right for his children to feel what they wish.  ANGER is not what I feel.

I was correcting an EGREGIOUS MISREPRESENTATION of what I wrote.

I CLEARLY SAID: “just as the gay community has a right to do what it wants with their OWN BODIES, PROTECTED UNDER THE RIGHT TO BE LEFT ALONE WITHOUT PEOPLE DAMNING THEM AS SINFUL, LUNATIC OR FULL OF HATRED, is the SAME WAY that the CHURCH has a right to govern itself and spread the gospel WITHOUT PEOPLE WITH A PRIVATE AGENDA asking a thousand year old institution to CALL THE BODY OF SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION AND THE BODY OF THE CHURCH HATEFUL, SINFUL, LUNATIC AND FULL OF HATRED.”

Thousands of dollars, thousands of hours, thousands of members have been lost because of this fighting.  And, unless you wish to challenge basic scripture, I do not see how making everything on this website about same sex marraige and Mr. Strout’s incessant postings are furthering the cause of Christ, when empirical data is very, very clear.

I am glad, at least, that you noticed that it’s not right to call Mr. Wirrell a lunatic.

Hi, Craig. I question the use of dramatic narrative-informed ethics and mystery (in the same-sex union context) as guiding principles for GC2009. Certainly “improvisation” (the title of the book you cite) is often been tried at GCs in the grand English tradition of “muddling through” difficulties. Rather than improvisation or narrative-informed ethics, the paramount issue before GC 2009 is that of right versus wrong. It is not merely that GC2009 may take, in your words, “positions that contradict the teaching of the Communion” concerning sexuality. It is, indeed, that these positions will contradict (and have already contradicted) Scripture, the bedrock of all legitimate ecclesiastical teaching and authority, as well as two millennia of tradition.

Even a valid narrative approach to Christian ethics should note that the human aspect of the Creation account in Genesis focuses on Adam and Eve (rather than some “mystery” of a homosexual relationship). This biblical account presupposes a one-flesh complementary relationship that precludes homosexual behavior; see, example, Jesus’ rebuke of the Pharisees in Matthew 19. Even the word “sex” comes from the Latin word “sexus” meaning “half of a divided whole” from the verb “secare” meaning “cut” or “divide.” In the deepest sense there can be no “integrity” in a homosexual relationship, only a pairing of sames, not of sexual opposites.

In connection with sexuality, St. Paul uses “mystery” to compare the relationship between Christ and the Church with the relationship between a husband and wife (Eph. 5). I believe it is far-fetched to extend the term “mystery” to some supposed mysterious complexity of the issue of same-sex unions with which church leaders grapple. This is especially true if most of these leaders have already committed themselves to a worldview holding that the experience of a so-called loving relationship is all that matters, regardless of what Scripture and tradition say and regardless of what the Anglican Communion teaching is on the subject. St. Paul’s discussion of this mystery follows an admonition (earlier in Eph. 5) to avoid “fornication and impurity of any kind” or else face the loss of “any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.” Paul added, “Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes on those who are disobedient.”

In your conclusion you call for us to “bathe our bishops and deputies in prayer.” Of course, prayer before (and during) GC is always appropriate. Yet I think an even more appropriate call would be for TEC-wide repentance, amendment of life, and godly discernment based on Scripture and tradition and guided by the teaching of the Anglican Communion as a whole. If such repentance is not forthcoming, then all the talk and decision-making at GC 2009 will be meaningless, notwithstanding any rhetoric about narrative-informed ethics and mystery.

Dick

Mr. Thomas:

As for your calling two people’s posts on this website - “DRIVEL”

You called a gentleman’s post “DRIVEL” and requested that they be removed; a man who opposed your position.  (There was a calling to let “IMAGINATION” fly with regard to eating chickens being kosher or not and one gentleman (who had engaged in a conversation with Mr. Strout for several weeks about same sex marriages and scripture) drafted a small satire about that discussion.

I ask you to consider for one moment, that while you felt dehumanized by using chickens to illustrate a point, your asking the entire church to abandon scriptural authority for your opinion, dehumanizes the church, its scriptural authority, its right to exist, its moral authority and even it’s ability to take a stand on anything.

I wouldn’t use the world DRIVEL to describe your opposition or imagination in pining after God in scripture, but I would most definitely say that you are making us chickens, instead of men and women created in God’s image, called to a very high calling with very high standards.

You are no more a chicken than we are a Royal Priesthood.

Cristina,

James and I have most certainly had our disagreements.  Speaking for myself, there have been times when I needed to take a time out from dialogue with him.  However, I do not ever recall calling him a lunatic or any other name for that matter.  I try very, very hard to remain respectful in my tone and dialogue.  I will speak to people’s postings, their arguments and even their behavior.  But I try very, very hard to never to call people names.  If you want to show me where I have called anyone a name, I would be happy to apologize to them.

You seem to be of the opinion that gays and lesbians cannot also be Christians.  I know of many gays and lesbians who would agree with you.  They want absolutely nothing to do with the Church and see it as a hateful institution.  Frankly, comments like yours above do not help to change that perspective at all.

Fortunately, I do not need your approval to be a Christian or a member of the Church.  I was baptized long before I knew I was gay; and at that baptism, I was sealed as Christ’s own forever.  Nothing I can do and certainly nothing you can say will change that fact.  What that means is that you and I will spend eternity together in the Presence of the Holy Trinity.  As Bishop Robinson often says, we might as well learn how to get along on this earth because we’ll be spending eternity together.

Now, I would be more than happy to talk about many other things than human sexuality.  I found our recent discussion on Communion Only After Baptism here on Covenant extremely helpful and remain very persuaded by them.  I enjoyed our discussion, though brief, about the use of Christ as Lord in the changes being recommended by the Liturgical Committee at General Convention next week.  I have also enjoyed our discussions on the use of inclusive language and when that language begins to cross the line of orthodoxy.  All subjects in which I have agreed with the majority of “conservatives” on this forum.

All of us have the capability of posting discussion threads and therefore all of us have the responsibility for the tone and content of this community forum.  I would be happy to talk about other subjects than human sexuality.  However, I will also contribute to those discussions as well.  I have no doubt that there are other forums where gay and lesbian Christians do not participate.  It is my understanding that Covenant purposefully desires to be a forum where people from a range of perspectives can dialogue and learn from each other.

So, I would encourage you that if you are tired of my “incessant postings” on human sexuality to please post on a different topic.  You might even be surprised to find that we will agree in other areas.

In Christ,
Shawn

Hi Dick,

In your conclusion you call for us to “bathe our bishops and deputies in prayer.” Of course, prayer before (and during) GC is always appropriate. Yet I think an even more appropriate call would be for TEC-wide repentance, amendment of life, and godly discernment based on Scripture and tradition and guided by the teaching of the Anglican Communion as a whole. If such repentance is not forthcoming, then all the talk and decision-making at GC 2009 will be meaningless, notwithstanding any rhetoric about narrative-informed ethics and mystery.

What is the repentance that you are asking TEC to make exactly?  Are you asking TEC to depose Bishop Robinson for example?  Are you asking TEC to defrock every gay and lesbian non-celibate priest?  And what will you do if such repentance does not occur (because I can assure you wholeheartedly that it will not happen)?

Or are you asking TEC to repent of its unilateral actions?  Are you asking TEC to move forward in a more multi-lateral fashion when making future decisions?  This, I believe, may (or may not) be a realistic request.

In Christ,
Shawn

Mr. Strout wrote:

[Cristina] You seem to be of the opinion that gays and lesbians cannot also be Christians.

My reply:

Mr. Strout, with all due respect, I think you may have a problem saying the truth.

————

My question to Mr. Tait was SPECIFICALLY with regard to “how the polity of the Episcopalian Church and Anglican Church’s influence their REACTION TIME to ATTACKS ON SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION in the cases of abortion, slavery, abuse, trivilization of sex and homosexual marriage.

We all abandon Christ on the Cross Mr. Strout.

This website is about Anglican Identity and I’m here to learn about Anglican Identity, polity, organization - not about your agenda for same sex marriages and I would even suggest that the thousands of viewers and readers who DON’T POST may not post because they do not want to get into arguments with you, reducing everything to same sex marriages.

Christ is for sinners.  I have observed most of your conversations with Mr. Wirrell and they are respectfully inaccurate responses often “putting words in his mouth” (to use his words exactly).

The tone and content should always be measured by the highest standard - truth.

And your post is not truthful.  as such, I feel compelled and even pushed to defend it.  Perhaps, I shall do, like Mr. Wirrell, and exit myself for a while and let not your thoughts marinate in my mind, but rather, not spend my valuable time arguing with a book as old as God’s breath, with you.