[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]

Re: [HoB/D] 'Defrock Ssenyonjo'


I wonder how long it took before no one in the the early church knew or
even cared who in the congregation with them was or was not circumcised.

Your letter makes it poignantly clear that you are not there yet with
regard to lesbigays in the councils of the church.  I fear I will live and
die without your ever having enjoyed our being disciples together.  You
cannot enjoy that if you continue to take every opportunity to try to
frighten people by suggesting that they have defected from real
Christianity when they allow lesbigays to "represent the church" without

I am particularly perplexed by your suggestion that lesbigays are not
faithful to scripture merely because we do not come to the same
conclusions you do about its witness of God's intentions for our lives. I
have never taken scripture lightly. I just ended forty-four years teaching
scripture at the university.  I may be wrong in my conclusions, and I do
need to be challenged, just as you may be wrong and need to be challenged,
but you write as if I have never heard your arguments or as if I have
hardness of heart because your arguments have not persuaded me.

Your unselfish love for the Episcopal Church is a model for me.  Many
others with your talent and resources do not heed the Gospel.  It is a
treat to be together on this same stretch of the gravel path in our holy
pilgrimage. It is a treat to be in the House of Deputies with you and to
follow you in serving on Executive Council. I rejoice to be your fellow

I hope I can be graceful in embroidering whatever Scarlet Letter you
require, imagining a time when people won't even know what the letter
stood for or why anyone wanted lesbigays to wear it.

Love God with your mind:  Visit the Global Witness at

XXXX@aol.com wrote:

> Hi Louie and others,
> Thanks for posting the following copy of the Presiding Bishop's October 8th,
> 1999 statement.  I do not remember exactly what statements the PB was
> responding to at that time; however, I am once again reminded of a couple of
> the questions I raised in my note of May 9th.  "Is it more important to offer
> love and approval to those who may be in conflict with scripture or to
> support the guidance of scripture for those who are vulnerable?  Can the
> church do both?"  While some may interpret the Gospel to say the "Love of
> Christ" offers unconditional approval, others seem to see Christ's love as
> being similar to the nurturing and guiding love of a parent.  While
> unconditional, a parent's love offers no guarantee of approval.
> Certainly the church must defend the human rights of all people; however, I
> am not sure if those rights include the unconditional right to represent the
> church.  No one should advocate the harassment and persecution of homosexual
> persons, especially not governmental representatives, but should faith
> communities have the right to teach specific beliefs?  Is there any way that
> the church can teach specific beliefs to provide guidance without appearing
> to exclude those who teach conflicting beliefs?
> Whether we are interpreting the Gospel or responding to those who seek
> advice, I think it is difficult for the church to offer guidance while also
> being a diverse community with different beliefs.  So far, based on the way
> this has been lived out in ECUSA, there are a lot of questions that need to
> be considered before this is recommended to others.  If we can find the
> answers to these questions in our efforts to discern God's truth, perhaps the
> rest will fall into place.

Please sign my guestbook and view it.

My site has been accessed times since February 14, 1996.

Statistics courtesy of WebCounter.