Christ Centered Gamer

Wow... I've heard of individual members being kicked out or excommunicated from various churches because of conflicting beliefs. This is the first time I've heard of nation-wide church branches being suspended.

Do we have any Episcopalians here? It would be interesting to get their perspective on this decision.

There are three things in this article I'd like to comment on, because they annoy me greatly.

In remarks he has made available to Episcopal News Service, Curry said the Episcopal Church has a “commitment to be an inclusive church.”

When did "inclusive" start meaning the same thing as "enabling sin?" The gay community is an entire demographic whose defining characteristic is their desire to live a sinful lifestyle, and this is given the same weight as race, sex or nationality?

“I stand before you as a descendant of African slaves, stolen from their native land, enslaved in a bitter bondage, and then even after emancipation, segregated and excluded in church and society,” Curry, the church’s first African American presiding bishop, told the primates. “And this conjures that up again, and brings pain.”

I really dislike when gay issues are compared with the historical struggles of the black community. This idiot is literally comparing a political move by his church to slavery and segregation. Oddly, later in the same article someone says

Episcopalians have been aware that the U.S. body could be penalized, said Jim Naughton, a communications consultant working largely in the Episcopal Church. “The sanctions against the Episcopal Church are trifling compared to what LGBT Christians suffer, and we shouldn’t be whining about the nature of the sanctions,” he said.

So it's good that he is acknowledging that this isn't some massive hardship, in contrast to what Curry said above... but at the same time I'm not particularly moved by the "plight" of the media darlings of the 21st Century, the LGBT community.

As for the suspension... I didn't know how those things worked, or what the relationship was between the Anglican and Episcopal Churches. Seems like a good move to me, though it is odd that this ruling didn't include the Canadian branches, who have similar policies. I wonder why it took so long, so I'm inclined to think this is more of a strategic move than something motivated simply by morality. Maybe there was concern that the more liberal sectors of the Church would start to gain too much power within the organization and this was done to counter it.

And rightly so; This is a blatant violation of several biblical precepts and doctrine. In my opinion , accepting such would disqualify a person or a denomination from being a true Christian body of believers as it flies in the face of the Holy Spirit's conviction and the express intent of Romans chapter 1 for one place in the text. It should have been sooner

I'm just gonna say it.

Any church that's cool with gay marriage and/or promotes homosexuality is guilty of heresy. I don't use that word lightly, but that's what it is. It's heresy. It's misrepresenting God's word and teaching false doctrine. I agree with Dirk in that it should have happened sooner, but better late than never.

ArcticFox wrote:I'm just gonna say it.

Any church that's cool with gay marriage and/or promotes homosexuality is guilty of heresy. I don't use that word lightly, but that's what it is. It's heresy. It's misrepresenting God's word and teaching false doctrine. I agree with Dirk in that it should have happened sooner, but better late than never.

And you get miffed when people say that stuff about Mormons?

Let 'em.

I can only assume that the Episcopal Church has said the same.

No doubt they have, but then they've shown that popular opinion matters more to them than the Gospel, so I doubt they've even given it much thought.

So it's fine to go against popular thinking--just not against popular Christian thinking? Got it.

I get you're trying to use some sarcasm to make it look like I'm being hypocritical in my approach and all that, but I can't even see how you derived that from my posts, so I'll just say "Ok, sure." and leave it at that unless you'd care to elaborate.

ArcticFox wrote:I get you're trying to use some sarcasm to make it look like I'm being hypocritical in my approach and all that, but I can't even see how you derived that from my posts, so I'll just say "Ok, sure." and leave it at that unless you'd care to elaborate.

Now, before I go into this post, I want to say that I get that this goes both ways and people on both sides of the spectrum get stuck in their ways or on hot button issues. However, this is my problem:

The fundamentalist way of thinking tends to be so "us vs them" and black-and-white that it seems as though from this viewpoint a person or organization is either a devoted follower of Christ or literally trying to undermine God and the Bible. It is seemingly never anything in between. Hearing people condescend so much to anyone falling on the "wrong" side of the evolution, gay rights, or whatever other hot-button issue debate is like having to endure a crowd of hipsters complaining about how their favorite band went mainstream. "Pssh, sellouts." Like, I'm willing to hear out anyone about their faith decisions, but I rarely see that reciprocated.

It's so agonizingly frustrating because that willingness to let other people just be in secondary matters (that is, ones that would not affect your salvation) and arrive at conclusions is almost never reciprocated. Or if it is, that kindness ends at trendy hot-button issues. People can agree to disagree about, I don't know, "once saved always saved," or whether or not the Trinity is comprised of three separate entiteis, but the second anyone suggests that homosexuality might not be a big deal, or that Genesis might be an allegory, or (for some reason) that climate change might have any kind of human involvement, it's like a switch was flipped and suddenly you're invoking the wrath of God.

So is the Episcopal Church just appealing to popular culture? I don't know. I'm not really qualified to make that statement. And for the record, I know you'll find a similar number of people on the other end of the theological spectrum who flip out about the same things if you disagree with them. I don't care. What I'm trying to say is that I'm doing my best to walk the midline of intellectual and theological neutrality, if only to make sure I step back and contemplate before deciding what I believe. I just find it discouraging that few other religious individuals do the same. You and the LDS church believe in a whole bunch of extra stuff that I don't. Cool. I know you walked a long road to arrive there. A lot of people I personally know would say you guys believe the ideas of a con man. For me, my experience with Mormon missionaries is that they're literally some of the nicest and helpful people I've ever talked to--it may be a stereotype, but helping random strangers in their garden while talking theology is pretty awesome. I'm not going to look at that and rule out the whole LDS church as heretical, because I could see Jesus and his disciples doing stuff like that. "Why don't you hand me a shovel and we can chat while we put up this fence?" Seriously... if only we didn't disagree about matters pertaining to whisky (I kid, I kid)

And you know, I'm not burning with passion to get you to change your mind about homosexuality, or anything else, actually. What I just ask of all Christians is that they stop and think before they say stuff. I've sat and talked with too many people from both sides to just write someone off because they disagree with the context or intention of a verse. I'm not arguing that we be complacent, but there's a difference between disagreements in matters of faith and an active work against God's will.

That is my issue. It's never "hmm, interesting. I wonder why they chose to do that." It's always got to be an outright attack. It's so inflammatory. I can honestly say that my life got markedly better when I stopped myself from engaging in reactionary indignation all the time.

...I assume we can agree to disagree on a lot of what I just said?

ChickenSoup wrote: So is the Episcopal Church just appealing to popular culture? I don't know. I'm not really qualified to make that statement. And for the record, I know you'll find a similar number of people on the other end of the theological spectrum who flip out about the same things if you disagree with them. I don't care. What I'm trying to say is that I'm doing my best to walk the midline of intellectual and theological neutrality, if only to make sure I step back and contemplate before deciding what I believe. I just find it discouraging that few other religious individuals do the same. You and the LDS church believe in a whole bunch of extra stuff that I don't. Cool. I know you walked a long road to arrive there. A lot of people I personally know would say you guys believe the ideas of a con man. For me, my experience with Mormon missionaries is that they're literally some of the nicest and helpful people I've ever talked to--it may be a stereotype, but helping random strangers in their garden while talking theology is pretty awesome. I'm not going to look at that and rule out the whole LDS church as heretical, because I could see Jesus and his disciples doing stuff like that. "Why don't you hand me a shovel and we can chat while we put up this fence?" Seriously... if only we didn't disagree about matters pertaining to whisky (I kid, I kid)

And you know, I'm not burning with passion to get you to change your mind about homosexuality, or anything else, actually. What I just ask of all Christians is that they stop and think before they say stuff. I've sat and talked with too many people from both sides to just write someone off because they disagree with the context or intention of a verse. I'm not arguing that we be complacent, but there's a difference between disagreements in matters of faith and an active work against God's will.

That is my issue. It's never "hmm, interesting. I wonder why they chose to do that." It's always got to be an outright attack. It's so inflammatory. I can honestly say that my life got markedly better when I stopped myself from engaging in reactionary indignation all the time.

...I assume we can agree to disagree on a lot of what I just said?

Actually, what you said makes a lot of sense, and I have no problem with it. Actually, I somewhat agree with it.

For me, I'm not an Episcopalian, so from my viewpoint, I don't have a dog in the fight. I do have to wonder about their differing approaches, though. The Bible is pretty clear on how Heavenly Father views homosexual acts. So if the Episcopalian church is willing to ignore those parts of the Bible, my question is this - are they doing this because God told them it was OK? Or are they doing it because they want to be more politically correct, or inclusive, or however you want to view it? I think it would be quite telling to get the answer - especially for those who are questioning their faith and are on their own spiritual quest for the "truth," whatever that may be.

Irregardless of what the Episcopalian answer is, it won't change my opinion of them (which is somewhat dismissive - if that's what they want to believe, then let them believe it. As long as they're not shooting up mosques or beheading Christians, or other acts of violence, let them be). It also won't change the direction I'm headed, in terms of my own spiritual pursuits.

ChickenSoup wrote: The fundamentalist way of thinking tends to be so "us vs them" and black-and-white that it seems as though from this viewpoint a person or organization is either a devoted follower of Christ or literally trying to undermine God and the Bible. It is seemingly never anything in between. Hearing people condescend so much to anyone falling on the "wrong" side of the evolution, gay rights, or whatever other hot-button issue debate is like having to endure a crowd of hipsters complaining about how their favorite band went mainstream. "Pssh, sellouts." Like, I'm willing to hear out anyone about their faith decisions, but I rarely see that reciprocated.

It's so agonizingly frustrating because that willingness to let other people just be in secondary matters (that is, ones that would not affect your salvation) and arrive at conclusions is almost never reciprocated. Or if it is, that kindness ends at trendy hot-button issues. People can agree to disagree about, I don't know, "once saved always saved," or whether or not the Trinity is comprised of three separate entiteis, but the second anyone suggests that homosexuality might not be a big deal, or that Genesis might be an allegory, or (for some reason) that climate change might have any kind of human involvement, it's like a switch was flipped and suddenly you're invoking the wrath of God.

I get what you're saying here, and I appreciate you elaborating on it.

Thing is, if we were to have a disagreement on doctrine, like the Trinity or OSAS, to use the examples you brought up, ultimately those matters aren't key to salvation. In other words, if you believe that living according to Christ's guidance is what it takes to reach salvation, then the finer points of doctrine aren't so critical. I know some would say that to hold a non-trinitarian belief is to believe in the "wrong Jesus" and thus leads to damnation, but that isn't all that common. Most people just don't think about these things at that level.

On the other hand, if we're talking about actual lifestyle, actual conduct, the way we live, morality, then it matters a lot more, because how we live has a huge impact not only on our own spiritual state, but on how others will perceive the Gospel through us. To ignore the moral lessons of Scripture is a much more serious problem because it's not just sin, it's leading others to sin, or to believe that these sins aren't such a big deal when they are. It isn't just scholarly, esoteric issues of the nature of God and Salvation, it's actual, practical reality. That's what makes it so much more of a hot button topic... because it fundamentally brings into question morality. This issue takes an entire category of sin and just... makes it not a sin anymore. The Bible didn't change, the way people wanted to interpret it did.

ChickenSoup wrote: So is the Episcopal Church just appealing to popular culture? I don't know. I'm not really qualified to make that statement. And for the record, I know you'll find a similar number of people on the other end of the theological spectrum who flip out about the same things if you disagree with them. I don't care. What I'm trying to say is that I'm doing my best to walk the midline of intellectual and theological neutrality, if only to make sure I step back and contemplate before deciding what I believe. I just find it discouraging that few other religious individuals do the same. You and the LDS church believe in a whole bunch of extra stuff that I don't. Cool. I know you walked a long road to arrive there. A lot of people I personally know would say you guys believe the ideas of a con man. For me, my experience with Mormon missionaries is that they're literally some of the nicest and helpful people I've ever talked to--it may be a stereotype, but helping random strangers in their garden while talking theology is pretty awesome. I'm not going to look at that and rule out the whole LDS church as heretical, because I could see Jesus and his disciples doing stuff like that. "Why don't you hand me a shovel and we can chat while we put up this fence?" Seriously... if only we didn't disagree about matters pertaining to whisky (I kid, I kid)

Your approach is a good one, and I applaud your effort to look at things objectively. I wish more people would.

In a sense it sort of has to be a black and white issue when you talk about matters of morality. Homosexual behavior either violates God's laws or it doesn't. We can debate the Trinity or OSAS because people can see it from different viewpoints, and ultimately salvation doesn't depend on what you believe about it, but it's clear in both the Old and New Testaments that certain behaviors are sinful.

Now, if we accept that homosexual behavior is sinful, then a church that teaches its congregation that a homosexual lifestyle is not sinful, then it's teaching false doctrine, and that is heresy by definition. It honestly isn't my intention to be inflammatory when I say that, it's just an observation that many people seem to be shy about making.

Would an Episcopalian see it the same way? Clearly not, but I still have to call it as I see it. I do think they're trying to fit shifting cultural norms though, and to me that's a red flag. They don't claim any kind of current, up-to-date communication with God (as far as I know, I could be wrong) which means they have no formal justification for changing their teachings otherwise. The Scriptures certainly didn't change, did they?

And yeah, there was a time when I'd get all offended and mad if someone accused the LDS doctrines of being heretical, but I don't sweat that stuff anymore. Had kind of an epiphany not too long ago. Happy to share the details if you're interested.

ChickenSoup wrote: And you know, I'm not burning with passion to get you to change your mind about homosexuality, or anything else, actually. What I just ask of all Christians is that they stop and think before they say stuff. I've sat and talked with too many people from both sides to just write someone off because they disagree with the context or intention of a verse. I'm not arguing that we be complacent, but there's a difference between disagreements in matters of faith and an active work against God's will.

That's true, there is... but whether they mean to or not, I'd argue that the Episcopal Church IS acting against God's will by promoting a lifestyle He has commanded us to avoid. This is a much bigger deal in LDS circles because of the eternal nature of marriage and families, but other denominations also teach similar ideas.

ChickenSoup wrote: That is my issue. It's never "hmm, interesting. I wonder why they chose to do that." It's always got to be an outright attack. It's so inflammatory. I can honestly say that my life got markedly better when I stopped myself from engaging in reactionary indignation all the time.

I get where you're coming from on that, and maybe it's unfair for me to jump to the conclusion that they're being influenced by secular, cultural pressure, but I just don't really see any other reason for them to do it. If you have any ideas I'd be interested to hear them, even better if we could find an Episcopalian to talk about it from their point of view.

ChickenSoup wrote: ...I assume we can agree to disagree on a lot of what I just said?

Of course! We're all friends here, and as a very wise man I recently got to know a bit online said, "If you can't handle dissent from people who care about you, how can you handle it from people who don't?"
-MormonGator

His blog

On mobile at the moment, so I'll respond better tonight or tomorrow, but a thought just occurred to me. You both mentioned it being useful to have an Episcopalian on the site to give feedback, and I agree--it would be very interesting to see how the body of Episcopalians at large, so to speak, all feel about it. If this is something that leaked out from the top down as a response from higher-ups to changing popular views, that's disingenuous and shady. Conversely, if this was a shifting attitude as a whole denomination over the past few decades or if they haven't actually ever cared much one way or another, that's another thing. I am just not familiar with the denomination at all, so I can't really speak to that.

Anyone have any contacts within the Episcopalian church?