Saturday, June 24, 2006
One of the things that is astounding about this BLOG stuff is the comments section. I want to respond directly to two recent posts by way of also answering “But I don’t hate you.”
To Pilgrim and ew-3,
You haven't published your profile so I don't know anything about you, but you know much about me.
It feels rather cowardice of you both to throw pebbles at me from behind a screen, but that's one of the risks, I suppose, of this kind of communication in cyberspace.
I'm a rank neophyte to this kind of communication and am just learning that there are very few rules here. I may be more the fool for publishing my profile in cyberspace.
I thought (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the whole point of blogging is to have a place to express one's opinion.
So, I find it oddly amusing to be scolded for doing so because I happen to disagree with your perspective.
You certainly have a right to your opinion and to differ from me, but to scold me?
Anonymously?
Well, perhaps you don't need to publish a profile after all.
Perhaps we know more about you than you want us to know.
To your point: You may not know this because you have neither heard me preach nor been in my congregation when I have held Adult Educational programs. As I have said, I had this blog spot created for me so I could be in touch with my congregation. I’ll now take the time to catch you up to speed on where I am / we are.
Just as I make a distinction between those on the Radical Left and those who are progressive and liberal, I make a distinction between those on the Radical Right and those who are conservative and moderate.
I have many, many conservative and moderate friends – indeed, many are members of my congregation – who genuinely struggle with the meaning of scripture, the tradition of the church, and the injustices they know to be perpetrated on LGBT people - both in our culture and in our church.
And, they are my friends.
One conservative posted here and with a gracious generosity comforted me and said that s/he was also not proud of the church’s action. I can’t thank you enough for that, whoever you are.
The folks on the Radical Right, however, are a completely different creature. "Mike in Texas" gives a good "snapshot" of who they are and what they believe.
Akinola and Duncan are just two of their leaders. Their members are legion.
They are not simply "organized to oppose (my) plans."
They have openly spoken of murder, punishment, prison and the denial of civil rights for LGBT people. And, they are quite serious.
They have publicly admitted that they want to "take over" or "supplant" The Episcopal Church.
Yes, I name that "evil."
Yes, I name that "heinous."
And, I do so with all the justifiable outrage I can still muster in this exhausted, bruised, broken-hearted body of mine. This kind of hatred and bigotry is not – can not – be of God.
This place of heinous evil is exactly where you land when you start with the position, “Hate the sin, love the sinner.”
A message of hate is still a message of hate. Even if you begin with the position that homosexuality is a sin, which I obviously don’t, there is nothing loving about it.
Think, for just a minute, if someone considered all sexual activity sin (And, there are those who do. St. Paul, for one thought marriage was not the highest state of spiritual life, but necessary for those who had to do something, for goodness sake, about their sexual urges. There are those I have met who quote these passages of scripture to me and believe them.)
Okay. You don’t feel this way. But, imagine with me, for just a moment, that someone considered your sexual orientation and your sexual activity to be sin. And they said to you, “Well, I hate your sin, but I love you as a sinner.”
Doesn’t sound very loving, does it?
Furthermore, ‘Hate the sin, love the sinner,’ places one on a slippery slope.
Because we are enjoined to ‘hate the sin’ we feel justified in an effort to take away the civil rights of “those sinners.”
We feel justified in sacrificing them on the altar of the false god of ‘communion’.
Indeed, we feel justified in doing so without even consulting the LGBT leadership in the 11th hour of General Convention, or to caution and warn them that this was the step that was going to be taken so we might have been prepared for the brutality of that act.
This position is diametrically opposed to the Word of God who said, "And I, when I am lifted up, will draw all to me."
As Desmond Tutu says, "All . . All . . .All . . .All. . ."
Initially, I cringed at Bishop Katharine's image of conjoined twins. I have been holding out hope. Hope of reconciliation. Hope of finding common ground. Hope of the Spirit of Anglicanism to rule the day.
However, I am coming to see the wisdom of it.
The Radical Right - like the Radical Left - are barely Christian much less classically Anglican - and for very, very different reasons.
The Radical Right, like the neo-Puritans, want to purify the church by imposing rigid rules and expelling those who will not abide by them.
The Radical Left wants to ignore doctrine and interpret the "all" of Jesus as "anything."
Neither position is one that belongs in the Body of Christ, much less part of the Anglican church.
I have distanced myself from those admittedly few on the Radical Left. I would urge you, if you find their position odious, to distance yourself and identify yourself apart from those on the Radical Right – whose numbers are growing daily.
So, scold me if you must. Think less of me as a clergy person.
What I know to be true is this: God loves the people on both ends of the spectrum as well as everyone in between.
That includes “them.”
That includes you.
That even includes me.
And, as for my "plan" - well, I think Bishop Gene said it best:
“Do you want to know what the so-called Gay Agenda is? I’ll tell you. The Gay Agenda is Jesus.”
And, Jesus said, “All.”
4 comments:
[smiling]
Well said, Katherine.
I expect you're familiar with M. Scott Peck's People of the Lie. It opened my eyes to what damage evil people can do in our lives ... if we don't recognize it.
Page 130: "But there is another vital reason to correctly name evil: the healing of its victims. The fact of the matter is that evil is one of the most difficult things to cope with."
Page 69: "The central defect of 'the evil' is not the sin but the refusal to acknowledge it. More often than not these people will be looked at as solid citizens. How can that be? How can they be evil and not designated as criminals? The key word is "designated". They are criminals in that they commit "crimes" against life and liveliness. But except in rare instances- such as in the case of Hitler when they might achieve extraordinary degrees of political power that remove them from ordinary restraints, their "crimes are so subtle and covert that they cannot clearly be designated as crimes. The theme of hiding and covertness will occur again and again throughout the rest of this book. It is the basis for the title "People of the Lie"."
Elizabeth+,
I consider myself to be a part of the Radical Left (denies Virgin Birth, questions Resurrection, questions doctrine of the Trinity, etc). I wonder who exactly you believe is on the Radical Left, and how exactly you believe their actions have harmed the church. I gotta ask because I gotta know what not to do.
Just so y'all know: I will no longer respond to anyone who will not identify him/herself.
Sorry, "ew-3" - who ever you are.
Dear EW3,
The 'Radical Right' would include people like Archbishop Peter Akinola. He has supported legislation in Nigeria that would criminialize any attempt to advocate on behalf of the LGBT community there, to discuss homosexuality in a positive way, in public or even in private, even to perform a same-sex marriage or commitment ceremony in church, with prison terms of up to five years. 'Sodomy' is already illegal in Nigeria, up to 14 years in prison. So, Akinola isn't exactly calling for murder, but he is persecuting people. Info here: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/peter_tatchell/2006/05/anglicans_applaud_nigerian_hom.html
I'm not sure why ++Rowan has not condemned ++Akinola's actions. But Windsor also asks all of us to commit to a process of listening, and acting to persecute a minority in one's country does not count as listening. If there's anyone in the Episcopal Church who supports his actions, I'd definitely think of them as 'Radical Right'.
You indirectly make a comparison of homosexuality to alcoholism. Indeed, the two are similar in many ways; one often doesn't choose to be alcoholic, and it's generally agreed among psychologists that one doesn't choose one's sexual orientation. However, we do not deny alcoholics their civil rights. Gay couples in some states cannot adopt or have difficulty adopting children jointly, they do not have inheritance rights, if one partner is a foreign citizen they cannot marry and achieve citizenship, they often cannot get spousal insurance benefits ... there are dozens of other benefits you get as a married heterosexual couple that you cannot get as a gay couple. And the one major difference between alcoholism and homosexuality is that there is, in my observation, a healthy manner to express homosexuality; there is no such expression of addiction to alcohol.
And so, at Convention, we adopted a non-binding moratorium on consecrating any gay bishops. The LGBT community in the Episcopal Church did not volunteer, as far as I know, to sacrifice themselves for the church. Perhaps this moratorium was justified, but you can understand that many people feel deeply wounded by it. I have no opinion on whether it was justified, but I will pray that it will be worth it. You say that +Elizabeth is exaggerating when she says 'brutality' - if the church imposed a moratorium on consecrating Caucasians as bishops would you not be offended?
I just pulled that example out of thin air. I have no idea if you're Caucasian or not because you did not fill in a profile. I encourage you to fill one in! It is good to know who you're talking to. I do not accuse you of anonymous sniping, but I would like to know where you come from, where you stand, etc. I have filled in my profile, and I actually just started blogging. There, you now know all about me. OK, you don't, but if you click on my name you at least have a snapshot of my beliefs, a photo of my ugly mug, and a link to my nascent blog where you can post comments, questions, or curses.
As for the issue of homosexuality, I already said something in a comment on one of +Elizabeth's other posts (I think it was the love them anyway post). I instead commend to you and everyone else the example of Tony and Peggy Campolo. Tony is a Baptist minister and sociology professor. Peggy is with the Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists. They are, it seems, quite happily married. And yet, their attitudes toward homosexuality differ. Peggy obviously thinks it's OK to be gay. Tony, however, does not. That said, he realizes, as does his wife, that it's a complex issue, and that people most likely don't choose to be gay. They are divided in their beliefs, but they are united in love for their neighbor - and Jesus taught us that 'neighbor' means even the people we aren't so comfortable with, the people we hate, the people who hate us.
http://nolongersilent.org/TribuneArticleOct2003.html
Post a Comment