Letters, I get letters . . .

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.”