I'm not sure if the late +++Temple would say that is what was meant by his words.

Wow, revisionist history abounds.

"Yes, for much of the faith's 2,000 year history, the role of its women has been overshadowed by that of its men."

I think I'll nominate that for understatement of the millennium...

And for downright misunderstanding where Christianity in general is today, this takes the cake:

"We are not centered in the particular events that happened over 2,000 years ago in a tiny outpost of the Roman Empire."

Tell that to the Roman Catholic church, or any of the more "Bible believing" denominations. Or just about any church in Africa.

Maybe there's something about being made a bishop that leads to delusional wishful thinking?

Nope, that's been her position the whole time. I usually tend to ignore what she and others (sometimes my own priests) tend to say in this diocese but in this case I made an exception.

Well, I think the branch of Christianity exemplified by Bishop Glasspool is very good for women. But then what do I know? Maybe I'm delusional/should be ignored, too.

JC Fisher

I don't ignore my clergy all the time, just when they make questionable statements through sermons,blogs etc. I've actually met Glasspool, very nice person on the surface. I refuse to take communion from her but she's still nice nonetheless.

So Nicole you have chosen the Donatist heresy? The church already decided that the efficacy of the sacrament does not depend upon the status of the human delivering it. Even the RCs agree on that.

I know. Article 26 of 39 states it as well. It doesn't make me a heretic to cross my arms or avoid her presence all together by attending another parish for the day.

Plus, I never said it wasn't a valid Eucharist. I just rather not receive from her. Just a personal preference.

Oh yes-- I see -- I have had that happen - people walking away because of my being a women - I have also seen it happen to black clergy. It is your choice and between you and God. Thanks for explaining.

I'd never make a scene or anything like that. No one would know why I wasn't there that particular Sunday or why I'm crossing my arms.

Ann, does a communicant like Nicole have the freedom to act on her beliefs without the offeror taking it personally?

There could be a number of reasons why someone would request the blessing and not His Body and Blood. They could be sick or they could be in a state on unworthiness. I've received the blessing for both of those reasons before and no priest may ask why as far as I know,or can they?

A person can do whatever they want about receiving communion or not. The priest should NOT get in the way of that person's relationship with Christ. There is provision for refusing communion to "notorious evil livers" (as it used to say) but that must be reported immediately to the bishop as it is "ex-communication"

I think the basics of what Bishop Glasspool is saying is spot on: responding to a blanket statement that "Christianity is bad for women."

And her basic description of Christianity, which of course just scratches the surface, is the counter to the quick claims that "the Bible says this about women", so it must be bad for women, or "The Christian Church did this to women", and thus it is also bad for women.

Bishop Glasspool (in a short op-ed) says that these claims are not the overarching "truth" of either the Bible, Jesus, or Christianity, and I agree with her.

Hi Nicole. One thing that helps me when I have a differing viewpoint from others (which seems often to be the case!) is to reflect on the notion that the other person is made in the image of God.

Apropos the eucharist, one approach may be to consider whether the sacrament brings us closer to God. If one were to consider the individual merits of the priest--whoever she or he may be--one would inevitably find that the whole thing falls short, for that's part of the human condition.

Hope my reflections are of some value.

Peace,

Eric Bonetti

Thanks Eric, I believe I understand what you are saying and it is for that reason that I would avoid my parish all together for that Sunday because my focus would be elsewhere and not on what Jesus did for me.

Ann, Nicole makes a good point: there are several reasons a Christian might not take Communion at a Eucharist which have nothing to do with Donatism. I was taught not to take Communion more than once a day, so if I received at one service and found myself attending another I might not receive; I've come close to turning down Communion because of random waves of medication-induced nausea before; someone might not feel spiritually prepared (which term I much prefer to "state of unworthiness"). I wouldn't make any assumptions about why someone doesn't take Communion on a given occasion, and certainly wouldn't take it personally (although I'm sure that there are lots of nasty people out there who decline out of mere bigotry, too).

Bill read this "I refuse to take communion from her but she's still nice nonetheless." -- what do you think?

Nicole, you exemplify what fundamentalists have always done- create schism and division within the larger body because your inability to tolerate people who are different than you. It is not liberals who leave so they can go and be more liberal somewhere else- it is always the fundamentalists who cannot abide our presence- whether woman, black, Jew, gay, fill in your descriptor, and flee to an imagined spiritual place of purity and or security.

I pray that one day you grow up and end your losing crusade to deny gay people the dignity that is ours in Christ.

And we should all stop feeding your troll-like antigay comments. We know your position and you know ours. What you are doing is just incendiary

Ann, I didn't make myself clear. My comment was not in response to Nicole's refusing to take Communion from Bishop Glasspool or anyone else (although why someone would attend a Eucharist presided over by someone they wouldn't take Communion from on principle is beyond me). Rather, I was responding to your saying that you've seen people not take Communion from you and black clergy. I just wanted to remind you that their declining Communion *might* have nothing to do with who is administering it. Then again, it might - but it seems healthier not to assume they have a problem with you.

Bill -- I don't need therapy from you - I generally give people the benefit of the doubt, but most who have refused communion from me have made it abundantly clear why they are doing it by telling me. I am also able to face facts that people have issues that I can not fix.

Bill, there was one case in which I was supporting a friend of mine in his new ministry so I didn't have a choice but to attend. Every other time I just went to another parish for that day.

Josh, if I was intolerant I would have left the church entirely. Happy Easter.

"Bill -- I don't need therapy from you -"

Nor was I offering "therapy."

"...I generally give people the benefit of the doubt, but most who have refused communion from me have made it abundantly clear why they are doing it by telling me."

Their telling you *does* make that an entirely different scenario.

I genuinely don't understand why someone's having a different opinion on church policy has to be considered bigotry or trollish behavior.

These are not my policies - I have gratefully accepted the eucharist from women priests and homosexual priests, and homosexual women priests, and have never been presented with communion from a black priest, but wouldn't refuse.

But in general, why is it bigotry for someone to believe something different? Why does it mean she is behaving hatefully because she disagrees?

"Then again, it might - but it seems healthier not to assume they have a problem with you."

if this is not therapeutic advice -- I don't know what you call it.

Because to gay people it is demeaning to constantly have to hear someone recite their bigoted mantra over and over again in disparate threads, especially as we all know the position of this blog- including her demeaning of Bishop Glasspool, as being "nice" on the "surface"- so I guess underneath she is ugly and impure?? Because she along with 5- 10 percent of the human family is gay? And because she is in a decades long committed, Christlike relationship?

Give me a break. If someone was constantly on this or any other blog with racist banter, we wouldn't put up with it because our consciousness has shifted in this regard. It is only because the dignity of gay people is still "up for grabs" in the court of human opinion that we still put up with homophobic ramblings. They are on the same, ugly, demonic level as racism, and do tremendous harm to our world.

Nicole, the first 20 years of my life were a living hell because of people like you. How does that make you feel, to know that your pathetic attempts to justify bigotry are part of a larger, Satanic effort to corrupt and destroy the creatures of God? I'm sorry, homophobia is on par with racism- it leads to death and destruction. Get a life, and get real. If you call yourself a follower of Jesus then start acting like it.

"if this is not therapeutic advice -- I don't know what you call it."

An acknowledgement that my alternate explanations of why people might not take Communion from you probably do not fit all cases, followed by a truism?

I wonder if anyone is going to tackle Claire Carter's question?

I tackled Claire's question.

Dear Claire: this is more than a difference of opinion - it strikes at the very heart of people's being. It is not an opinion as in "I like chocolate and you like vanilla." These statements and the Bible has been used in this case (and other cases - like supporting slavery and second class status for women) to physically and psychologically wound and kill brothers and sisters. Try to put yourself in the place of those hearing the words of "sin" and "not fully a member" directed at you. One is not judged on your deeds and faithfulness to Christ, but on something that is unchangeable (even Dr. Spitzer whose work the so-called "cure" is based on has rejected his own study as wrong) and your very being. To be denied the fullness of life and relationship because of someone's belief -- this is not just a disagreement of opinions -- it has and continues to be a source of terror to a whole community.

Really? It seemed entirely directed towards Nicole, but looking back at the first line I suppose it was addressed to Claire.

It didn't really answer her question, though. As I understood it, Claire asked why it's necessarily bigoted to believe differently than you or I about homosexuality, or women's ordination, or whatever the reason is that Nicole objects to Bishop Glasspool. Your reply seems circular: it's bigoted because it's bigoted.

How do we know that those who disagree with us do so because of hatred/bigotry, and not from religious principle?

Sorry - my last comment was directed at Josh.

It is a unique and terrible terror and suffering, and if you would just listen to people you would know this- and you would know that it is not about sex, opinion or belief. This issue goes to the heart of the gospel, and what it means to be a follower of Jesus, which is why the church is in such agony now.

As an aside, nothing dismantles patriarchy like gay people- we are a walking contradiction to the supposed God ordained way of things- if this goes, as Phyllis Tickle says, what is really left for the fundamentalists? Patriarchy is at the heart of their worldview, and creates a perceived threat to their own being and relationship with God, which is what this is really rooted in, is fear, and a distorted image of God that is based in this fear.

What a terrible, nightmarish state of affairs we have gotten ourselves in from departing from the Way of Jesus. If we had just listened to gay people all along, we wouldn't be here- but now that we are, the only way out is through.

I think the most telling thing is that not once in any of my comments did I say anything about Glasspool being a lesbian or made any charges against homosexuality in general at all. Who's really intolerant here?

In that case, Bill (non bigoted objection, which I am not sure really exists), is also unacceptable, because of the pain that the religious prejudice, when enacted. We know what Jesus thought of ritual purity when it interfered with God's embrace of the Whole- this is so very simple, it really is. I have never heard a reasonable or legitimate rejoinder to the linkage between homophobia and racism, or biblical justification for slavery and the six verses. That's because it doesn't exist.
This is such a clear cut issue it would be laughable in any other context.

Which is further to my point. I think that this is basically rooted in either willed ignorance or outright bigotry. Even if an individual who proposes a homophobic position does not feel themsleves to be a bigot, they are participating in a larger cultural and historical climate of bigotry that has lead to the ideational field which would lead them to adopt said position, because the truth on this issue is so obvious to people who actually look and listen.

Again, it comes back to patriarchy- it is so deeply ingrained in the history of the West that when we challenge it, and say it is actually an aberration to the Jesus Tradition, it looks like we are upending that tradition itself, when what we are really doing is adopting the conservative position that the authentic tradition itself demands.

Nicole, get real.
Don't embarrass yourself any more than you already do on a daily basis here by insulting your own or other people's intelligence.

Josh, trust me when I say you are in my prayers just as I am in yours.

Nicole, I don't want or need you prayers. Faith without works is dead.

It wasn't a request. And Amen, Faith without works surely is dead.

Sorry, Josh, but I can't agree. Not only do you seem to be begging the question by declaring the belief homophobic to begin with (which is what the question is trying to determine), but whether a belief is bigoted or not has to do with the person affirming it and how they reach it, not how it makes others feel. If it did - if the only important factor in deciding the morality of an act were how deciding one way or the other would make people engaging in the act feel - it would be next to impossible to come up with any system of morality at all.

By the way, Josh, I have no idea what you mean by the linkage between homophobia and racism.

@Ann: Loved your comments about the fullness of life. While TEC is far from leading the way on issues of equality, our overall willingness to affirm the inherent worth and dignity of every human being is one of the most meaningful things about the church.

And while my views differ from Nicole's -- and probably several others here -- I am grateful that, in the great Anglican tradition of tolerance, we can agree to disagree and remain open to discussion.

Eric Bonetti

Nice way to avoid the article folks.

When Glasspool responded to the "Christianity is bad for women" comment (wherever it came from) I don't think anyone can seriously argue that Christianity has been, up to this point, bad for women.

Seriously.

Glasspool wasn't addressing whether the Episcopal church has been kind to women, the issue was the history of the entire Christian faith and its attitude to women. From millennia old attitudes to women inherited from the historical bible, to witch trials to their exclusion from church leadership (much of which still applies, mostly minus the witch trials) this still applies in many parts of the world and many strains of Christianity.

Putting words in the mouth of a dead ABC was kind of shady too. Not even Rowan Williams would endorse that particular position.

Dave, do you think that Christianity has been especially bad among major religions (like Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism) in regards to its treatment of women?

I think Islam has us beat, historically and now. Forget about women Imams, they can't even go anywhere alone without a male escort.

"And while my views differ from Nicole's -- and probably several others here -- I am grateful that, in the great Anglican tradition of tolerance, we can agree to disagree and remain open to discussion."

I for one am not in TEC because of the neurotic British legacy of keeping face. Nicole's position does not tolerate mine, and mine does not tolerate hers- either gay people will be fully included and embraced in the church or they will not. The longer it takes us to get there, the more people have to suffer.

I could give a rat's A$$ at this point about the pretense of tolerance and even handedness- the homophobe position is wrong, period, end of story. We've been doing this for 40 years. Look at where waffling has gotten us with the African bishops. As I told my rector recently, at this point I am not interested in continued dialogue, what I want- and demand- is justice.

"Nicole's position does not tolerate mine, and mine does not tolerate hers"

Well, positions neither tolerate nor refuse to tolerate; people do those things. In what way does Nicole not tolerate you? Has she left the Episcopal Church? Does she demand gay people be driven out of the Church? Has she told you to shut up? As far as I can tell, she has done none of those things. What she has done is believe differently than you do about sexuality issues, and voiced that disagreement - which, ironically, you can't seem to tolerate.

Irony, is right Bill, your continued defense that is. Her "position" if you will when enacted drives gay people out of church and excludes them from the full sacramental life of the church. She can believe in a bigoted lie, which is what homophobia is, like racism, going back to another one of your points, a meanspirited, profoundly ignorant lie rooted in a mistaken belief about biology (in the case of race, the lie begins with homo sapiens being subdivided into "races"- with being gay- its a choice, its about sex, etc... all lies rooted in a warped biology) couple with a fundamentalist interpretation of sacred texts that keeps people in physical or spiritual bondage.

There is no place in the church of Jesus Christ for homophobia enacted in church polity, as there is no place for racism enacted. Her bigoted beliefs can remain hers though I wish they wouldn't- but we no longer have separate black and white sections in TEC- mainly because we waited too long and all the black people left. The church needs us more than they know- it is as much about what they are missing out on as what we are missing out on.

Which is why this is not now, nor has it ever been, about "beliefs"- just as the gospel is not about beliefs- but love-in-action.

And what's next Bill? What should be the next position that we "tolerate"- how about a tolerance of positions advocating a return to the church's virulent anti-Semitism, misogyny, hatred of the earth in the form of forced conversion of "pagans", advocacy of brutal punishment of children, and on and on and on. Homophobia is no less destructive than the aforementioned- as the kill the gay "bishops" in Africa and the 1000 percent suicide rate make plain- the have utilized our own colonial legacy of "tolerance" to endorse their preconceived prejudice that tribal cultures sometimes show towards gay people (though not all, as in the case of gay affirming Native American tribes).

We must stand for something as a church, or nothing at all. People believing in any of the above have a right to be here, but they will not have a right to enact their hateful ideology in ways that corrupt and destroys the creatures of God, as long as the Spirit of Jesus is still welcome in the church that bears his name.

The only phobia I have is entomophobia. I live in Southern California for crying out loud. If I was homophobic I'd have to live under my bed here!

Clever girl. Homophobia has become a generic term for antigay prejudice, which is what you hold.

So you pick your preferred term for your prejudice, and I'll see if the shoe fits. On the etymological menu today are bigot, heterosexist, gay basher and more. Customize your prejudice all you like- as Jesus said, it is a whitewashed tomb filled with filth inside.

Dear Josh- please don't use "girl" unless you are speaking with a child. Analyze your own words with the lens you use on Nicol's.

Bill - "Dave, do you think that Christianity has been especially bad among major religions (like Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism) in regards to its treatment of women?"

Probably better today than most, even in the more fundamentalist fringes. But really, religion has not been kind to women throughout history, period. When advances have come, it's generally been over the strident objections of large chunks of organized religion.

To its credit, there have been a fringe few in religion throughout history who have paved the way for social advances aka human rights extended to all.

But they have rarely been the established leadership or a majority.

It was a quote from Jurassic Park, and mild sarcasm is not on the same level as bigotry- but I will tone it down. We're not getting anywhere anyhow, if people want to keep a safe space for bigotry, be my guest- I'm through.

Yes, how ironic, Josh. You’d think I didn’t believe the Church ought to be a club of the like-minded, where everyone interpreted the Bible the way that I do and shared my political agenda. You’d think I didn’t believe in endorsing a heckler’s veto. In short, you’d think I valued the Anglican tradition of comprehensiveness.

The Episcopal Church is poorer for its decreased theological diversity after the defection of the various groups of conservatives who have left in recent decades. Their exodus may have been inevitable, and it’s calmer now that we aren’t arguing about the ordination of women or gay people, but the cost for that calm is a loss of lowercase-c catholicity. We’ve shrunk ideologically, and are on the way to becoming a narrow sect with room for everything except dissent, and where everything can be questioned except an orthodox political liberalism.

I don’t want a Church that’s a conclave of the ideologically pure. If I wanted that, either on the Right or the Left, I’d know where to find it. So, yes, I defend the presence of someone who believes differently from me, but who hasn’t felt the need to leave.

Thanks for toning it down Josh -- for adult women "girl" is sexist bigotry and for black women even worse. Continues the patriarchy. And is an attempt to take away our agency. You know I support full inclusion in the church and society - to advance that in the church does not give license to return wound for wound.

Bill, we're not having a meeting of a minds here. I have said multiple times that people of all ideologies should be welcome- but that various forms of discrimination should not be church policy. Its not about ideology, its not about beliefs. They can continue to be have their beliefs without imposing a bigoted agenda on our families. There is no less to their families and their lives by an inclusive stance, all of the loss is on our side.

As Jack Spong said, I do not want to be held together in homophobic unity. Catholicity has to do with (a perceived) faithfulness to the gospel and the tradition, not with allowing hateful policies to continue once we know better.

And know better we do. TEC is among the most privileged and educated Christian bodies in the US, and we have been leaders in LGBT inclusion. To whom much is given, much is required. In all of the instances- misogyny, racism, antisemitism, child cruelty, homophobia- who was catholic and who was not- the tiny minority, then as now, that was out in front opposing these evils, or the vast majority who approved of them?

As Joshua said, and Jesus constantly reminded us, we must choose each and every day whom we will serve, and elect leaders who will lead us into the highest vision of the good that is possible, not cower out of a fear of bruising egos, which is all homophobia is rooted in, is the ego. The gospel is toxic to the ego. People still encased in it are welcome to come along for the ride, it is what the church is for, but they cannot and must not be in the driver's seat until the scales have fallen from their eyes, or else we will all fall into a ditch.

You're absolutely right Ann. I didn't use my head or more importantly my heart in using that movie quote, and I'm sorry Nicole (just for that, not for anything else, I truly think you will feel much better when you let this go, sister, and don't think we should go on about it anymore directly).

Thanks Josh.

Josh, not only is Nicole not in a position to affect Church policy significantly,, but I haven't read anything to suggest that she'd be inclined to if she were. Your reaction to her does not seem to be in response to a genuine threat that any agenda, bigoted or not, is going to be imposed on our families. In this case, it *is* about beliefs, and people's freedom to express them.

As I've said, I don't think Christianity is about beliefs, which is why I don't care about them per se, only their effects on God's people. Nicole is part of a broader ideological movement that does impose its will on the vast majority of gay Christians- her words AND her actions such as the Eucharistic refusal make this plain.

Maybe because I know that this kind of action can asnd do have an effect in the spiritual realm (Paul's principalities and powers, the Kabbalah's intermediary worlds) I am more sensitive to the words, beliefs, and actions we effect in this world (such as Jesus' admonition about what's in the heart having actual consequences - to me the heart is the metaphysical center of the human being and this is not an allegory for the mind).

In short, what is in our heart manifests in the world, as Jesus and all other wisdom teachers make plain.

And this is not about diversity. In most contexts Spirit delights in diversity, but it is a diversity rooted in love and communion. Homophobia is not a legitimate spiritual position, nor are the other social evils I have mentioned, so it having homophobia as an option in Christian teaching is NOT legitimate diversity, which is always based in love, freedom, and mutual flourishing.

What the homophobe heart condition does is short circuit Spirit's joyous expression of diversity in these three dimensions, causing great pain and distress to the victim and the victimizer.

"What I want - and demand - is justice."

From whom, Josh?
For what?

I have been thinking about this discussion constantly, and I can see Ann's point that it's not as simple as I like chocolate and you like vanilla, that inclusion goes to the heart of someone's personhood.

And I have wondered about the parallel with the civil rights movement. Would it have been enough to say "you have your opinion and I will have mine" as to the right to vote or to be served in an all-white establishment.

And I think so. If a white person did not wish to dine in establishments that served black people, the white person was free to leave. But he couldn't legally drive out the black patrons.

Nicole seems to say that she exercises her option not to receive eucharist from certain members of the clergy. That is allowable. Just like Ann is allowed to be offended when she perceives a prejudice.

We are allowed to think whatever we want, and we should hope that we do not get the kind of justice we deserve for the hateful thoughts we all harbor. But we are all sinners. That is one of the primary tenets of Christianity. God is love and he does love every one of us, but he constantly calls us into conformity with Christ. Meaning to repent constantly - not to constantly cry our for justice and insult people whose opinions about doctrine differ.

I can't see how you can have it both ways, Josh, how you can theoretically in favor of a Church where people who disagree with you "can continue to be have their beliefs without imposing a bigoted agenda on our families" but then label people who actually disagree with you as part of some some threatening "broader ideological movement" that makes their very presence intolerable. Neither have you shown that believing that homosexual acts are sinful is necessarily the result of bigotry - all you've done is repeat the claim, as if repetition were proof. And now you would have me believe that you just know better because your superior spiritual understanding makes you that much more sensitive.

So Nicole committed the great sin of not taking Communion from Bishop Glasspool once, and doesn't attend her parish when the Bishop is there. And that's somehow proof that she's up to no good, plotting to impose her will on us. I reject that, as well as the implication that the mandatory reception of the Sacrament is some sort of litmus test people have to pass in order to be welcome in the Episcopal Church.

You're assuming that she doesn't receive because she's a bigot. Personally, I find that her explanation (at April 12, 2012 9:07 PM) makes sense to me, because I've been there - at times I've found myself so irritated by a priest or a liturgy that I've had a difficult time keeping a proper attitude for Communion. Why? Sometimes it's been the priest's demeanor and sappy liturgical style, a couple of times it's been because someone in the congregation was unable or unwilling to actually speak in unison with others. Once it's simply been because I was in a crappy mood. Most of the time I've gotten a handle on the distraction and overcame it before Communion. But on at least one occasion that I can recall I didn't go up to receive because, in spite of my efforts to get past my irritation, I couldn't really say that I was "in love and charity with [my] neighbors." And once I left before Communion. Was my intractable annoyance anything to be proud of? No. It probably represents a character flaw. But I remain convinced that those were appropriate ways to deal with it, and that it isn't within anyone's purview to tell me what I should have done.

I don't know why Nicole finds it difficult to receive from Bishop Glasspool. Maybe it *is* because of her sexuality. Maybe it's because of something else - the bishop's manner, or voice, or her position on an issue, or any of a number of other things that Nicole might find distracting. What it definitely *is*, however, is none of your business, or mine.

Bill, keep defending her right to be bigoted. I'm not joining you on this any further. If you really can't make the connection with Glasspool's sexuality and Eucharistic refusal, or be able to judge context and tense (as well as the HEART) then keep giving her the benefit of the doubt.

And I'm sorry that your inability to acknowledge or experience the metaphysical realities that every religion is based on makes you feel slighted in some way- your problem, not mine. I don't have a faith from the neck up- mine includes the heart, and the heart is real, regardless if you acknowledge its existence or influence.

"And I think so. If a white person did not wish to dine in establishments that served black people, the white person was free to leave. But he couldn't legally drive out the black patrons."

Right now we are "legally" (in church polity) discriminating against gay people in most Christian churches.

"God is love and he does love every one of us, but he constantly calls us into conformity with Christ. Meaning to repent constantly - not to constantly cry our for justice and insult people whose opinions about doctrine differ."

God's love and God's justice are two sides of the same coin. This is the Biblical tradition. One without the other is next to meaningless. And calling a spade a spade is not insulting. Being a homophobe is not a legitimate Christian option.

"Nicole seems to say that she exercises her option not to receive eucharist from certain members of the clergy. That is allowable. Just like Ann is allowed to be offended when she perceives a prejudice."

Christianity is a religion of the heart (they all are). What you are advocating here is very dangerous at many levels. God didn't need the Enlightenment's permission when the prophets discerned that we are to do justice and love mercy, or Jesus when he gave the greatest commandment.

I will say for a final time. Bigotry is not a legitimate spiritual position, and it doesn't matter if our society has its head up its own a$$ about political correctness and inclusion of toxic positions. My Dad who was a police officer once lead a team of 200 riot squad to circle around a building to protect the right of a racist to give a lecture at a public library.

This may get our societies approval- we see the outside but God sees the heart. At the spiritual level, allowing or expecting people to stay in an unregenerate heart state is about as far from faith as we can get, as it is precisely faith's job to transform the heart.

We are our brother's keeper. We do not live in the Enlightenment delusion of an atomistic world, an aspiritual, acosmic, flatland universe where the mind, "freedom" to believe whatever and reason are the greatest realities.

What we do to the web we do to all. What is in our heart affects us all, at every level of our being, and it affects God's heart. Allowing or expecting bigotry to remain forever in our midst is totally and completely antithetical to the religious worldview.
Furthermore, it spells certain annihilation for the human species, because the atomistic complex is claiming our planet for the self at a rate that is unstoppable by all but a genuine remembrance (repentance) of who we really are.

Josh, besides expressing a heartfelt plea that you please get over yourself, I point out that your comment addressed to me quotes material that is not mine.

I will add that it doesn't do anyone any good to inquire or assume about anyone's spiritual state. I'll leave that to my Savior and my confessor.

BIll, the comments were for Claire too. Again and for a final time, your cerebral faith is yours, there is more to faith than the mind, and your privileging of the mind above all else it is at the root of our disagreement, here and in the 200 poster. People who acknowledge the More are not crazy, they are accurate. And nothing offends the postmodernist sensibility more than to say so.

Nicole and whoever else cares to listen- it is perfectly fine day after day to endlessly obsess about the contents of our minds, our rational faculties, on this blog, and seek to critique and clarify them and how in line with Reality they are, but the SECOND anyone starts to talk about the contents of the heart- THE SKY IS FREAKING FALLING!! :-)

Even though the Way of Jesus is the way of the heart, and Jesus didn't ask people to accept notional assertions or metaphysical statements, but did ask and require that there hearts be transformed.

My goodness the growing up we have to do. Nothing is more germane to the life of faith than discussing "anyone's spiritual state." Your spiritual condition Nicole affects us all, as it affects you, and it is not a private matter between you and God. That is sentimental faith, not Christian faith. We should not pry into people's hearts belligerently, but you have opened yours up on this and other threads, and for once someone has commented on THAT, what really matters, rather than the endless ramblings of the dualistic reason-machine that plagues Episcopalians.

It is the ramblings of hyper-rationality that have kept prejudice in place for so long in this church, the constant qualification, the revolving door of specific situations that a generality may not apply, such as Rowan's "provision" for sexist parishioners, the sickening aura of pseudo-erudition that encourages people to writhe around as they mentally masturbate themselves into a via media frenzy of "tolerance, " "catholicity" and "comprehensiveness." Tolerance, balance, and freedom are given so that we may better learn how to love and liberate the world as needed. When they are used to oppress, they become autoerotic perversions of genuine tolerance and diversity.

Get real. Pi$$ or get off the pot with LGBT inclusion. The world and God are waiting for our response.

That's your opinion Josh, and I respect your right to hold it. We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't believe that any human has the right nor the capability to determine and/or to comment on what is in the heart of another.Only our Lord knows what is truly there and how we reached it and if we have a confessor, which I do, I absolutely share with them, so as to obtain true absolution when I fall and general confession on Sunday Mass isn't enough for me. I have no authority, I'm only a Sub-Deacon on occasion. I don't discuss matters of the faith in my parish to anyone but my confessor. My confessor isn't even a member of my parish. I'm no threat to anyone. Who has the phobia here?

Nicole, you're hurting yourself, if no one else, and your exclusionary acts with Bishop Glasspool have effects as well, even if you or Bill don't acknowledge them. Its fine to have a confessor, but you are right that it is between you and Christ- only remember that Christ is in every being in this universe, including the people you spurn and show contempt for because of the way Christ the Creator of all has made them, and don't think it doesn't wound God's heart, as it wounds mine, as it will with any gay person you share your beliefs with, even if they don't acknowledge it at the time.

For your own sake, and the sake of the world- let it go! Do an experiment with God. Ask Her, "I'm trusting you to help me relate to my LGBT brothers and sisters who are equally your beloved creation as I am, and I'mwilling to wager God that your Love is wide enough to embrace even them and their Love, even if I don't currently understand how, I'm wiling to risk expanding the circle of my own Love to embrace them, until you show me otherwise."

And then really listen, listen to every level of reality you can as you are able- listen to science, listen to us here, listen to people like Glasspool in decades long loving relationships, listen to biblical scholars and teachers who embrace LGBT inclusion, listen to gay Christians your own age, and most of all listen to your own heart, because the Truth really does lie there- it is not in your confessor, or me, Ann, or anyone else- the Christ who is All indwells you, and His Love knows no bounds. It is we who are to afraid to believe that sometimes- I know I do- almost on a daily basis.

If you do this, and do it honestly and deeply, that is all I or anyone else could ever ask of you. If some of us here are further down the road of being able to embrace the whole, it is only by the grace of God. and nothing to boast about, we know that you will eventually get there one day as well, we will all get there, to the Kingdom and Queendom of God; we will find our way home again.

Josh,my advice to you is to accept that there will be people that will not agree with you. Feel free to ignore it.

And I think Glasspool is enough of an adult to acknowledge that there will be people who disagree with her. Follow by her example.

"And I think Glasspool is enough of an adult to acknowledge ...

Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

Go home, Nicole :-)

You're making assumptions again,Josh. Not good.

Somehow, I don't think Jesus meant "act like a brat."

And regarding Nicole's spiritual state, this is the Internet. It's not exactly the place for reading a person's soul.

-Alex Scott

"your privileging of the mind above all else it is at the root of our disagreement"

"dualistic reason-machine that plagues Episcopalians."

I don't think I do privilege the mind or reason above all else in religious matters: I also try to include scripture and tradition. But you got me on thinking reason is a very good thing - it's a fair cop.

Back in the 80s the Episcopal Church had an ad featuring the face of Christ and the tag line "He came to take away your sins. Not your mind." I liked those ads. Rants against reason? Not so much.

Hi Josh et al. This has been a good discussion and I'm glad to see the variety of perspectives.

A couple of perspectives I'd like to share:

• Apropos Nicole's views, I start and end with the notion that she, like all of us, is made in the divine image. Beyond that, I have enough faults of my own to occupy my altogether too short attention span.

• I don't see tolerance of others' viewpoints as inimical to the drive towards equality. To the contrary, respectful engagement is one of the best ways to change hearts and minds. Indeed, many studies suggest that it is personally knowing someone who is different (in whatever manner) that leads people to set aside their prejudices.

• I do not agree that we are leading the way on LGBT inclusion. We are doing much better in recent years, and better than other denominations, but as I said in my January 29 post, the "full and equal claim" resolution was passed in 1976. More than 35 years later, we are still dithering around on these issues. Good heavens--the Supreme Court reopened Brown v. Board of Education after 30 years, on the basis that "all deliberate speed" was looking to be more about the “deliberate” than the “speed.” And if 30 years was too long for the creaky mechanisms of the Supreme Court, 35 years surely is too long for TEC to get it together on these issues.

Eric Bonetti

PS Josh, the other point I'd raise is that I do not condone appeasement of the prejudiced; there is a distinction between that and tolerance.

My belief is that one of the ABC's great failures was his inability to differentiate between the two. Bullies rarely are satisfied when appeased. Indeed, to do so often is to engender further bullying. Thus, true leadership on +++Williams' part would have been to insist on respectful and inclusive behavior on the part of all provinces within the Communion.

As a mentor of mine once said in metaphor, "If you are being robbed, by all means cooperate and give the robber your wallet. If on the other hand your assailant is trying to kill you, do not cooperate no matter what."

Eric Bonetti

"He came to take away your sins. Not your mind."

That's cute. :-) A better one would be

"He came to take away your heart of stone, not your sins and not your mind."

The heart is not the mind, and if we gave anywhere near the attention to it in TEC as the mind, we would already be there with inclusion.

"He came to take away your heart of stone, not your sins and not your mind."

That's cute too, but it isn't Christianity in any sense. The Unitarian Universalist Association might be a better fit for a statement like that, not a Christian church.

Jesus did NOT come to take away your/our sins, Josh?

Many do not believe in atonement theology -- you can see both that one - sacrifice of Jesus for sin - and other theologies in the BCP and the Bible.

I think you're mistaken, Ann. While people differ in atonement theories - Penal Substitutionary Atonement, Ransom Theory, Satisfaction - the Atonement itself is an incontrovertible part of the doctrine of the Episcopal Church. Where exactly do you think the BCP teaches anything other than the "sacrifice of Jesus for sin"?

Jesus was not born to die, no. The entirety of his life and being, as Jesus and Cosmic Christ-and our participation in it- is salvific and atoning. This includes his kenotic offering of himself unto death, but it is part of the pattern of his whole life, not an exception to it.

I follow the New Perspective on Paul that says the sacrificial language of the NT was primarily Paul's effort to convert righteous gentiles, and assuage uneasiness about Jewish Christians not participating in the temple system- of course, that was a nonissue within a generation of Jesus, with the Temple's destruction.

In any case, the ancient view of sacrifice is very different than what became Christian "orthodoxy" as Ann has pointed out.

"That's cute too, but it isn't Christianity in any sense. The Unitarian Universalist Association might be a better fit for a statement like that, not a Christian church."

Copping Bill Clinton, it depends on how "Christian" the word "Christian" is.

Some UUs are Christian, they were for a couple hundred years, and the whole of the denomination is heavily influenced by the Jesus tradition in any event- most ministers cite Jesus as their spiritual hero and over a third of ministers are process theology people- a Christian development.

Jesus was not born to die, encouraged the use of the intellect, and the quote about the heart of stone is from the Bible.

But please let's not get into an argument over this. It was supposed to be a fun quip to Bill's fun quip.

"For God so loved the world,that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him"-John 3:16-17

That explains the Savior enough for me.

Yeah, I love the third chapter of John too, mostly. Only eternal life in John's Gospel is not about going to heaven or being free from sin, and believing is not about notional assent.

That's your interpretation,Josh.

Eucharistic Prayer,Form B- "After supper he took the cup of wine; and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, and said, "Drink this, all of you:This is my Blood of the new Covenant, which is shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins. Whenever you drink
it, do this for the remembrance of me."

If someone doesn't believe Jesus' own words, that His blood was shed for the forgiveness of sins, why bother approaching the rail for anything but a blessing?

"Jesus was not born to die, no. The entirety of his life and being, as Jesus and Cosmic Christ-and our participation in it- is salvific and atoning. This includes his kenotic offering of himself unto death, but it is part of the pattern of his whole life, not an exception to it."

I agree with this completely. I don't know how rebellious you think it is, but it's perfectly orthodox. The theology of the Crucifixion and atonement participates and harmonizes with the Incarnation; they're not competing against each other.

But anyway, the witness of the Bible, the Church, and the Prayer Book is that Christ did come to take away the sins of the world. It wasn't limited to the crucifixion--it included his teaching and his healings and exorcisms and signs--but the crucifixion is a pretty big part of it. Like it or not, he did die, and the Church does have to grapple with why. And we're kind of in the middle of a liturgical season celebrating how said crucifixion didn't stick.

But then, Paul did say that the cross was a scandal.

"I follow the New Perspective on Paul that says the sacrificial language of the NT was primarily Paul's effort to convert righteous gentiles, and assuage uneasiness about Jewish Christians not participating in the temple system- of course, that was a nonissue within a generation of Jesus, with the Temple's destruction."

And yet it was still a defining statement of the early church, what with all its martyrs identifying with Christ on his cross; and in the conciliar era, with the Desert Fathers and early monks pursuing mystical union as a "little martyrdom."

Eternal life does mean "to live abundantly" in John's gospel. It also means life in the age to come. Again, why should the ideas compete when they can harmonize?

I'm starting to think that video on "the diversity of orthodoxy" from last week is more true than I initially realized.

- Alex Scott

"I agree with this completely. I don't know how rebellious you think it is"

No one is trying to be rebellious.
There are multiple atonement theologies in the history of the church, which includes contemporary theology. Choose the one that you think is True and the one that mediates Christ to you, and I will do the same thing. :-)

I would still like Ann to answer my question about the BCP.

This is probably not a good place to explain what I believe - but the short hand is I believe that Jesus was born lived died and rose from the dead - to show us the way to the fullness of life (salvation). I don't believe God killed him to appease some sort of God-honor because we have sinned. He died by a collusion of church and state because his Way threatened those who would take power over others - and continues to do that.
The church called their belief in him The Way. Christ asks us to follow him - that is what I do - the Eucharist is a continual reminder of that commitment and a way of participating in his ongoing life and presence. The Road to Emmaeus appearance in the breaking of the bread is my paradigm as is the last BBQ - fish on the beach.
The cross was not a prominent symbol until Constantine - before that the Good Shepherd or the sacred meal were the symbols of The Way. As to the BCP -- you see what you look for.

for more see my essay on "After" at Daily Episcopalian.

I think what Ann said about the BCP - you see what you look for - can be said about scripture and theology as well.

This is why it is so important that we be truly inclusive with each other - recognizing that we are all devout and invested and giving each other the right to be present in church, the right to our particular journeys, the right to our opinions, and the right to take up our "issues" with the church as a whole, and not with each other and recognize that each of us has the right to our own systems of belief and that we cease to be Christlike when we start demanding and insulting each other.

Thanks for the explanation Ann. That's different from the blanket denial that Christ came to take away sin, it would seem.

Pace Giles Frase's article in the Guardian this week, the Cross as a physical object (on jewelry, hanging on a wall, etc.) wasn't common until Constantine, but its use as a sign - tracing it on the forehead, for example - is well attested to much earlier than that, and so is its centrality in Christian teaching. The reason the Cross appears as a decorative/devotional motif in Constantine, it seems to me, has more to do with the fact that legalization meant that Christians no longer had to rely on secret codes like the Fish or anchor for recognition, than it does with a shift in interpretation of the Cross itself.

"I think what Ann said about the BCP - you see what you look for - can be said about scripture and theology as well."

If we're talking about a prayer or a canticle in the BCP, that might be correct, but the BCP contains more than prayers and poetry - it has things like the Catechism, too. ECUSA Canons say "The Doctrine of the Church is to be found in the Canon of Holy Scripture as understood in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds and in the sacramental rites, the Ordinal and Catechism of the Book of Common Prayer" (Canon IV.15). The Catechism is, as its title main title has it, an Outline of the Faith - it's a sketch, not a complete exposition of Christian teaching. But it's not a Rorschach test, either - it makes some pretty unambiguous statements. Anglican teaching contains a lot of room for wiggling and fudge, but it's not a completely do-it-yourself project.

Bill, you repeatedly castigate more liberal people like me for wanting ideological conformity (which I do not) and yet somehow always manage to bolster your own more "catholic" position with appeals to some text or tradition, subtly seeking to invalidate their own position. Which is why people like me have to constantly challenge the "tradition" you appeal to.

I am sure Ann as a priest in the Anglican Communion is aware of the outline of faith in the back of the BCP, along with some of the other more archaic doctrinal materials.
But liberals make up a specific portion of TEC, and we don't prooftext our relationship with God with the last few pages of the BCP.

I am sorry that this seems to be some kind of continual threat to your need for conformity, but its something you're going to have to get over, because we're not going anywhere.

Josh,

First, using the term "liberal" to describe yourself seems like a bit of understatement, really. Of course, you can describe yourself however you want, but to try appropriate the label of liberal to yourself and then frame this as a conflict between liberals and some other faction (who, exactly?) is disingenuous.

Secondly, I'm sure, too, that Ann is aware of the Catechism. At any rate, I wasn't responding to her directly, but to Claire, who was quoting her and expanding the envelope of her statement. But even if I had been addressing Ann, so what? I make no apologies for disagreeing with statements made by a priest. Invoking Ann's priestly status as you do smacks of clericalism, as well as an attempt to pull somebody else's rank to bolster your own position in a discussion.

Third, the Catechism is not included with "the other more archaic doctrinal materials" but by itself. And, unlike the Athanasian Creed or the Articles of Religion or any of the other historical documents, the Catechism is specifically cited in the Canons as a source of the doctrine of the Episcopal Church.

Why is that important? You've said several times that you don't care about belief or beliefs. But it couldn't have escaped your notice before you joined the Episcopal Church that, unlike yourself, the Church collectively puts a certain stock in beliefs. The Apostle's Creed is recited at least once a day in the Daily Office, and the Nicene Creed is said on Sundays and Major Feasts at the Eucharist. Deacons, priests, and bishops make vows that that they will be loyal to the doctrine of the Episcopal Church, which the Canons say "is to be found in the Canon of Holy Scripture as understood in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds and in the sacramental rites, the Ordinal and Catechism of the Book of Common Prayer." The Church holds doctrine to be important, and that doctrine is not just any religious thought or opinion that pops into one's head (or any impulse or feeling that pops into one's heart), but found in a specific, readily accessible body of texts. (That's a good thing, by the way; it protected Bishop Righter from the ludicrous charge of heresy that other bishops made for his ordaining a non-celibate gay man, because the judges could see that there is no core doctrine of the Episcopal Church touching on homosexuality.) You're certainly free to belong to a Church whose teachings you reject - "The Episcopal Church Welcomes You," after all - but finding that another Episcopalian actually upholds the Episcopal Church's teachings shouldn't really be that big of a shock, much less a source of irritation.

Fourth, you're off-base in engaging in armchair psychology with me; keep the speculation about the threats and needs that you think drive me to yourself.

Fifth, so you're not going anywhere. Mazel tov. I'm not planning on going anywhere, either.

What Bill said. I'd certainly like to avoid having to defend my liberal bona fides. As far as the church and its theology goes, I take scripture, tradition, and reason pretty seriously, and believe in conserving them. I genuinely think it has a lot to offer the modern world.

It's an intricate mosaic, and we have to make sure the tiles used are the ones that most contribute to the overall image, not simply the ones we like best.

- Alex Scott

Xanax works, Bill. (I know I just took one).

:-/

Sad state of affairs when people begin to take on the person instead of their ideas. If you don't have a reasonable argument, it's probably best to withhold comment.

Bill,Alex, I'm with you guys. You take out scripture and tradition and you're only left with one thing, the UUA (Which is not a Christian church regardless of "past influence").

Oh I think we could all be on something and it would probably help (ritalin for example, for most people)- the brain is imperfectly evolved, after all!! :_)

" You take out scripture and tradition and you're only left with one thing"

I wonder what that "one thing is or should be?
My guess is that its..

"Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears....Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known"

And I have another great quote from an author whose name escapes me....

"Christianity taught the world that Love is more important than knowledge."

Christianity, among all the religions in world history, is the most neurotically obsessed with believing things, despite the above, and depsite Jesus proably being the most unorthodox, radical, liberal, anticreedal, antidogmatic, and the least metaphysical of all the founders of the great traditions.

How often we forget who we are, and what it means to be a Christian- what it means to affirm that Love is more important than the ego, and all of its attempts to find security in knowledge.

Religious beliefs serve only two purposes on our brief sojourn- 1.) to help us experience God's Love more fully 2.) For the sheer joy of delighting in God's word, as one Hasidim said, why are we here? Because God loves to hear stories.

Because there are 7 billion of us, and because diversity is rooted in the ontology of the universe because it is rooted in the inner life of God, God will ALWAYS be the newest thing in the universe, as Hildegard reminds us, and NO CREED, statement of faith, theological formulation, will EVER BE ABLE to contain Her, especially the pathetic attempts of various empires to contain Jesus and force everyone to think in their own, rather narrow doctrinal categories.

I do not negate the value of the mind or concepts to help expand the heart- but by our very natures we need different things and will always need different things, and to say otherwise is close to the sin against the Holy Spirit, in my judgement. If the traditional categories float your boat- GOOD! Celebrate that, and use them to draw closer to God. Hell, if I was on death row, substitutionary atonement might even mean something to me. If it helped mediate the infinite, unstoppable Love of God to me, that is fine, as God is PERFECTLY CAPABle OF melding Herself into every heart and every crevice of this universe without our permission or approval, using any religion or no religion as the shoe fits.

COming together around one table as Christians means that in Jesus Christ we have found a Way, a Truth and a Life into the mystery of God- that Jesus has claimed us, that we recognize the continuing value of ALL parts of the tradition to mediate Love to the world today. Wanting people to get on the same page is delusional, because as Aquinas says, every life is a BOOK ABOUT GOD and as Eckhart says if we KNEW HOW TO STUDY EVEN A CATERPILLAR CORRECTLY God would show us the mysteries of the universe.

The Shekhinah is so thick in our universe you have to scrape it off our planet with a scapel, just like life, clinging to every crevice and corner of our world, proclaiming in every kind of way and every kind of voice the goodness and Love of God.

So keep trying to feel secure and validated, Alex, BIll, Nicole, and others, in your attempts to corral everyone in the church around a similar belief structure. And if you manage to get everyone's conceptual configurations in the church aligned "correctly" in a way similar to your own. WHAT THEN?

Is God going to be proud of you?

Is Jesus going to give you a shiny gold star of approval or a smiley face sticker to put on your cosmic report card?

All that will happen is when you get to the Queendom, you will have is a good 'ole laugh along with God at the way you tried in this lifetime to contain God and make yourself feel better and more secure by tearing down the beliefs of others.

God's symphony will keep playing, as it is now, as it always has been and always will be.

"He who has ears, let him hear!!!"

In order to tear anything down, it has to have a foundation and a structure. Good night,Josh.

"In order to tear anything down, it has to have a foundation and a structure"

In the beginning... GOD

That's the structure- God is the structure. Its still the beginning to God. God is still the beginning, the middle, and the end. Wherever we awaken with the gift of life and consciousness, -

GOD

GOD is the structure.

If God can continue to create everything in a moment by moment basis, we should not be afraid to create. Ever seeming "new" doctrine is a variation on the theme of

GOD

As long as it is rooted in

LOVE

Eventually, the theme of the divine symphony in our hearts goes like this

....LOVE GOD, LOVE SELF, LOVE NEIGHBOR WITH HEART SOUL, MIND STRENGTH

.....OK, so "LOVE THE WHOLE WITH YOUR WHOLE"

....THERE IS NO OTHER!

.... and all that's left is

LOVE

If we could communicate that to the world, in any way possible, we would be doing our job as the church.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
---William Goldman, _The Princess Bride_

"Religious beliefs serve only two purposes..."

You don't believe something because believing it serves a purpose. You believe something because you think it's true.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Death cannot stop true love. All it can do is delay it for a while.- Princess Bride

True love conquers all- Sleeping Beauty

"God is Love"

"The greatest of these is Love."

et. al. :-)