The Truth about the Anglican Communion's Listening Process
Commentary
By David W. Virtue in Puerto Rico
www.virtueonline.org
11/28/2009
Certain Anglican Communion leaders want us to listen to the pain (read whine) of homosexuals, and it is being done, indeed now mandated under the alleged guise of objectivity called the "Listening Process" funded and paid for by a retired Episcopal priest from the diocese of Southeast Florida, who donated $1.5 million to fund the entire project through 2011.
But a psychologist, teacher and former university professor of psychology, who spoke to VOL proffered a different and perhaps deeper perspective on the Listening Process that has nothing to do directly with money or sex.
It is this. The process of "listening" has everything to do with what he called "systematic desensitization" that is, the process of dealing with peoples' alleged phobias, breaking down their resistance, thus changing peoples' minds and their values towards those who are afflicted with same sex attractions. The process is designed to first generate sympathy then empathy and finally acceptance.
This technique was first revealed by the now deceased Dr. Joseph Wolpe (1915 - 1997). Wolpe was a South African psychiatrist, born into a Jewish family from Johannesburg who later settled in the United States. He is best known for developing what is now called "systematic desensitization." Systematic desensitization involves the imaginary exposure to a feared stimulus while simultaneously applying relaxation. Along with Arnold Lazarus, he is considered one of the fathers of behavior therapy. One of his best-known books is The Practice of Behavior Therapy (4th Ed in 1991).
Wolpe came up with the concept now known as desensitization, reasoning that much of our behavior, both good and bad, is learned, and there is, therefore, no reason why it could not be unlearned.
Here is how it works in The Episcopal Church. It was the practice of former Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold at general conventions to have Bishop Gene Robinson, The Episcopal Church's first outed homosexual bishop, sit with orthodox bishops in small groups in an effort to humanize Robinson to his would be detractors thus attempting to break down their defenses so they would first accept him as human (was there any doubt), then his sexual orientation and finally his need to live it out because that is the way God made him, or "I was born that way."
This practice was continued with Robinson at the recent General Convention under Mrs. Katharine Jefferts Schori. Robinson is painted either as a hero or a victim, depending on who is talking to whom. For President Barack Obama, he is a hero and was given pride of place at his inauguration. For orthodox Episcopalians and Anglicans, he is a man promoting a behavior that not only has the power to kill physically, but has the greater power to destroy a person spiritually, and for all eternity. One therefore cannot take this matter lightly; living souls depend on the right answer.
When Robinson speaks, he likes to plays up his ordinariness, "I am just a country bishop", "my sexuality is irrelevant", "I'm just like you," "I believe in the gospel" so let's get on with it.
His spiel, like that of the Listening Process, is not designed to elicit or find the truth, but rather to manipulate and cajole listeners into believing that who he is and what he does is perfectly normal.
In reality what is really going on is a systematic attempt to desensitize orthodox Christians into believing that homosexuals are no different from you and me. We should just live and let live. No attempt must be made to offer therapeutic alternatives to proffer change, even though many same sex attraction therapies have proven effective, but the real attempt is to neutralize orthodox Christians, lulling them into believing that homosexuality is just an alternative behavior that should be accepted even though many homosexuals are now saying that they don't want to live that way. They know of all people what this means. They have seen their friends die of HIV/AIDS and many more have broken up their marriages to live out what they believe is their authentic selves.
What happens in the systematic desensitization process is a subtle shift in values. One is made or led to believe that there are now multiple choice sexualities -- much like a Sunday buffet at an expensive hotel.
"It is a covert operation to get perfectly normal, thoughtful Christian men and women who believe that what the Bible says about sex outside of heterosexual marriage is somehow deficient or culturally bound and to avoid not being charged with homophobia, they should simply roll over and accept this often deadly lifestyle behavior," said the psychologist.
VOL has watched this process happen over and over again.
A moderate or liberal bishop with minimal hermeneutical training in Scriptural interpretation listens to a sermon on inclusivity or diversity, or same sex commitment and suddenly they are convinced that the Bible is Darwinian, out of date, or that St. Paul was a misogynist or homophobic. Suddenly, the bishop's mind is changed. (Bishop John Shelby Spong is the worst example of this.)
Furthermore, compassion, misplaced we should hastily add, demands that we accept Robinson's lifestyle even if Holy Scripture is clear that such behavior will keep people out of the Kingdom including Robinson himself.
The Continuing Indaba Project led and facilitated by the Rev. Canon Philip Groves of the Anglican Communion Office and the Rev. Canon Flora Winfield of Lambeth Palace boasts that it is trying to seek a "common mind upon the issues which threaten to divide us." That's a fiction. There is no common mind, it will never be achieved. The Law of Non-Contradiction makes it impossible.
What Groves is attempting to do is to listen to the voices of those on the margins of society and of the church and, without coercion, get you to believe that because homosexuals are marginalized, subject to abuse etc. then the obvious answer (to avoid being labeled homophobic) is to fully accept them into the church and embrace them without repentance and change in their manner of life.
The American Anglican Council blew the whistle on the "Listening process" revealing that a $1.5 million gift came from The Rev. Marta Weeks, a retired Episcopal priest. Now Meeks openly advocates same-sex blessings. The money given by the Episcopal priest will be monitored by a group of sex "experts" who advocate a vision of sexual freedom and "justice" that bears little resemblance to mainstream Christian doctrine or tradition. At least one of these "experts" believes that pornography, bestiality, and multiple sex partners are not inherently harmful or wrong, wrote Robert Lundy of AAC.
This is not only pushing the Indaba "Listening Process" button to the max, it is saying that the desensitization process will not be complete until everyone is on board with Groves and his "Listening Process". After all why would a single priest give $1.5 million if he did not expect the desired outcome to favor the full inclusion of LGBT persons into the life of the church indeed the whole Anglican Communion? He would be a fool to throw this kind of money at something that he didn't think it would win him the Nobel Prize of full inclusion? It is like placing a bet on a horse race with two horses when one of the horses is already lame at the starting gate.
Groves responds, when challenged, that he also listens to the voices of ex-gays like the Rev. Mario Bergner, but when you look closely enough, it is little more than tokenism. Groves will plead objectivity, but it is laughable in the face of the evidence that money is being used to obtain the desired end of full (homo)sexual inclusion and that the Listening Process report is designed to manipulate the entire Anglican Communion into believing that pan-sexuality is good and right in the eyes of God.
It is not insignificant that Dr. Rowan Williams' two closest friends are homosexuals. One, his best man, recently committed suicide; the other, Dean Jeffrey John, recently married his partner in a civil ceremony. The Archbishop of Canterbury sees no problem with this. His book "The Body's Grace", a tacit affirmation of the archbishop's position on homosexuality, still stands. He has not gone back on his ideas.
Clearly with GC2009 ratifying two resolutions affirming homosexual behavior for clergy and rites for same sex blessings, those living in (homo)sexual sin will not be persuaded to change their minds or lifestyles. Orthodox Anglicans will not change theirs either.
Behind the whole desensitization and homophobia rhetoric (guilt trip) is the assumption that traditionalists, not revisionists have to change. The listening process is designed to change the attitudes of orthodox Anglicans not the other way round. The Listening Process should be seen and declared for what it is, publicly rejected and abandoned. The Listening Process is a sham. Orthodox Primates should declare it to be so and demand it be closed down. Nothing good will come from it.
Said the psychologist , "If you go back into church history you will find ample evidence for the notion that in times like this, the church required major surgery, reform, that is, not aspirin. This always implied a certain type of separation and a no compromise attitude that the postmodern mentality has almost erased from the Church, with the exception of a few visionaries, here and there."
What is clear is that the worldwide realignment of Anglicanism, generated largely by the acceptance of pansexuality, is fully underway. It will not be stopped.
END
| Poster | Thread |
|---|---|
| eChurch | Posted: 2009/11/28 11:44 Updated: 2009/11/28 12:11 |
Just popping in ![]() ![]() Joined: 2009/8/22 From: UK Posts: 20 |
You have absolutely nailed it as usual David.
You are probably aware of the 'Changing Attitudes' Blog and website here in the uk, that pushes for the 'rights' of the LGBT community within the church. Note their name, for this gives their game plan away really. They are all about changing people's attitude to sin and then teaching others to do likewise. It doesn't matter what the Bible and God says, it is all about chasing after the 'spirit of the age', namely so called equality. They are on an 'equality victim' type crusade, so much so, that they will join forces with anyone, including secular and humanist groups to promote their agenda against the church:- http://blog.echurchwebsites.org.uk/2009/11/26/the-cutting-edge-consortium-cec-has-united-to-remove-all-religious-liberty-safeguards-in-the-equality-bill-in-sexual-orientation-employment-laws-which-protect-the-religious-liberty-of-churches-and-o/ They wish to desensitize and create splinters of doubt within Christians minds, as you have identified in your article. Ehud (eChurchWebsites) posted this comment on their blog after they patted themselves on the back for joining with Humanists and Secularists to ‘run to the world’ in an attempt to remove the right of faith groups, to restrict employment to Christians whose private conduct and beliefs are consistent with the Bible’s teaching on sexual ethics and I note that he has not received a response. This is the comment:- "I would have assumed that as representatives for the LGBT community, you would be more libertarian in your approach, advocating freedom of lifestyle and expression, free from legislative interference. So, as you can imagine, I find it rather ironic that you should wish to strip faith groups of the freedom to employ whom they wish to employ. You cannot take an authoritarian stand against folks freedoms and then ask for total freedom in return? Seeking to enforce legislation when it suits you and then remove legislation (or authoritative control) when it does not suit you, is not the way forward frankly." http://changingattitude-england.blogspot.com/2009/11/cutting-edge-consortium-and-christian.html And this is the crux. Those that seek to 'change our minds' are riven with internal contradictions and paradoxes that they themsleves are utterly unaware of. The plank and speck comes to mind. If they wish to have their own church; 'The Church of the Gay Saint', then I would encourage them to go for it, with no interference from me, alas, this is not their goal (they know where their bread is buttered). They wish to change everyone's attitudes and mold the existing church into their own image and in the process divide and destroy churches, although they simply don't seem to care about the consequential damage, because it's all about their "rights", afterall. |
| jfmckenna | Posted: 2009/11/28 12:11 Updated: 2009/11/28 12:11 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2006/2/4 From: Posts: 584 |
I could see this kind of thing resulting in a situation where the opposition is at least neutralized if not persuaded. I could see being tempted in this way myself. Until recently there were two lesbians living in the house next door to mine and I became very friendly with one of them. This didn't change my mind about homosexuality, but I could imagine a situation where, let's say, there was some situation where I was supposed to state my viewpoint publicly within her hearing, and that thought would cause me to cringe a little because of the friendly relationship between us. Another thing I observed recently is one where a rector of a church had a son who came out as homosexual, and presto chango, the rector then announced his support for that whole agenda. That situation would be tougher than the next-door-neighbor case. So that's in part how all this works.
|
| daveball | Posted: 2009/11/28 12:54 Updated: 2009/11/28 12:54 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2004/12/18 From: Pittsburgh, PA Posts: 2377 |
Well expressed. This process has been obvious for years. It used to be called "talking it to death". The longer the discussion can be drawn out, the more tired the opponents become. This has occured with WO, female bishops, homosexuals, gender neutral Scripture and a host of other issues that are logically and Scripturally indefensible but are now with us.
|
| Cennydd | Posted: 2009/11/28 13:51 Updated: 2009/12/3 17:21 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2005/10/30 From: Los Banos, CA, Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin Posts: 6862 |
[I am absolutely done with listening,] and I will pay no more attention to these miserable people and their whining.
I have nothing in particular against them, but I am sick and tired of their whining. Let them howl "discrimination!" as much as they want to, but their voices are ]dead to me. Cennydd |
| aterry | Posted: 2009/11/28 14:40 Updated: 2009/11/28 14:40 |
Quite a regular ![]() ![]() Joined: 2006/6/19 From: Virginia Posts: 54 |
I've long suspected that the yammering without end on the part of the homosexual activists was about little more than exhausting those on the side of orthodoxy. Now, this essay not only confirms my assumptions, it brings to like a more sinister component to their agenda.
I'm reminded of Joseph Goebbels and his lesson on repeating a lie long and loudly. Too, I'm also reminded of the Maoist, Stalinist practice of outright Brainwashing. The fact that these tactics are being foisted on the church under the guise of honest dialog is frightening. I suspect if Dante penned his Inferno in our day, there may well be a dedicated ring for those who are busy forwarded the homosexual fifth column in the Episcopal Church. But a word of encouragement.. Christ himself reminds us that not even the Gates of Hell will prevail against His church. |
| Newshound | Posted: 2009/11/28 17:13 Updated: 2009/11/28 17:13 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2007/5/5 From: Posts: 238 |
David,
Great article, and great journalism as usual! The reason I have posted so many comments concerning the Anglican Communion is my deep concern that those pushing the pansexual agenda and other efforts totally condemned by the Bible are totally ignoring the word of God. II Timothy 3:16, says "All scripture is God breathed". The Bible is not a rulebook to persecute or restrict anyone, but rather God's guidelines for abundant life (John 10:10). Having learned to fly airplanes, I have become very respectful of aerodynamics. Break the rules and you'll crash and die... I am praying the entire Anglican Communion will see the Bible in the same way |
| CH-Discern | Posted: 2009/11/28 21:00 Updated: 2009/11/28 21:00 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2009/10/10 From: Posts: 259 |
Great article and so true. As a psychologist/ theologian myself, I completely agree with what is presented here. The culture and the churches have been increasingly desensitized to all kinds of immorality. This desensitization has been described by the metaphor of the frog in the slowly heated pot. Do it gradually enough and he will not notice until he is boiling. We are cooking, folks, and it’s time to jump out of the pot.
This is why schism for reasons of orthodox doctrine (vs. heresy) is more to be desired than unity for its own sake. True unity in the Church is about Who and what we believe; it is about Who we worship (and to Whom we fully submit). True believers always remain unified, but we can expect religious organizations to continue to be all over the map, many submitting to the culture (political correctness) as their god. The homosexual agenda is furthered immensely in the larger culture if they can get their primary distracter (the Church) to reduce its criticism (by ‘listening’ without standing up for the scriptural truth), or even better, if they can get the churches fully on board. It is also helped by denying the possibility of transformational change in the individual. Of course, in order to accomplish these goals they have to deny the holiness and authority of scripture. The increasing relativistic philosophy (which denies absolute Truth) helps this cause. These cultural factors have as their foundation a desire for people to regard themselves as little gods and do whatever they please, rather than submit to the true God. The Gnostic self-worship heresy is becoming full-blown. 2 Timothy 3 (Godlessness in the Last Days): "But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God—having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them." |
| hunter | Posted: 2009/11/28 22:44 Updated: 2009/11/28 22:48 |
Just can't stay away ![]() ![]() Joined: 2007/4/29 From: Posts: 124 |
Great work, David !!!
Keep on exposing TECcon and comrades professionally choreographed antics and cunning manipulative techniques. Unmasking them for what they are is what these actors fear most. |
| otispage2 | Posted: 2009/11/29 21:32 Updated: 2009/11/30 9:01 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2007/3/14 From: Posts: 615 |
The “listening process” is a tactical implementation of a “reconciliation” strategy by TEC.
TEC’s strategy has existed formally over the last decade if not before. The objective of this strategy is to indoctrinate Episcopal Saints in accepting homosexuals as qualified Christians. Reconciliation is achieved by “listening” to the lie that same-sex sexual partners are invested in “just loving each other”. This is done in the false name of “love” (Rom 5:5), by dismissing the sin of homosexuality (Rom 1:26, 27), and by disparaging Scripture. God’s Word is unambiguous in portraying sex sins of all types, even lustful intent, as wrong. (Matt 5:26, 27). Unfortunately, the majority of the Episcopalian laity is hooked on the Homosexual lie. The “listening process” has resulted in a “reconciliation” where the lie has become rationalized truth. Homosexuals are compelled to denigrate Scripture since there is not one verse or statement in the Scriptures that approves same-sex sexual relations. The Homosexual Agenda is a basic secular movement in the name of Civil Rights. Christianity in its traditional form must be destroyed if the Agenda is to succeed. TEC is a major prize in its conversion as a Homosexual Church. |
| Cennydd | Posted: 2009/11/30 0:28 Updated: 2009/11/30 0:29 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2005/10/30 From: Los Banos, CA, Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin Posts: 6862 |
"TEC is a major prize in its conversion as a Homosexual Church"
Agreed, and those who are steadfastly in agreement with them are PRIZE FOOLS for falling for their garbage. They've been duped BIG time! Snookered! Bamboozled! Cennydd |
| Hoofin | Posted: 2009/11/30 1:50 Updated: 2009/11/30 1:53 |
Quite a regular ![]() ![]() Joined: 2009/4/11 From: Japan Posts: 44 |
David,
You have your blog entry date on top as 12/28/2009. I am sure you meant 11/28/2009. Quote: By David W. Virtue |
| gralan | Posted: 2009/11/30 3:25 Updated: 2009/11/30 3:25 |
Just popping in ![]() ![]() Joined: 2009/11/19 From: Canyon Lake, Texas USA Posts: 15 |
Great article, wonderful comments.
In terms of being bamboozled and snookered, I hope that we all will agree that it is usually only in a crisis that we understand we've been "had". This situation is another case in a chain of snookering, so to speak, that has roots directly traceable to the first century church; let alone beyond to the Garden. We are called to be alert. We are called to examine ourselves to see if we remain in the faith. We do not have a good track record of doing either. We need to stay focused on the culture of the Kingdom of God. Major on the majors, not on the minors. While it is true that there will be tares in the field, we do not have to go out of our way to fertilize and water them. Paul writes in Titus for us not to pay attention to myths and commandments of men who turn away from the truth. This means anyone who turns away from the truth... cleric or laic. There is no unity for the Bride of Christ with those who break union with Christ. your fellow suffering servant, prayerful for all His saints, gralan |
| Hoofin | Posted: 2009/11/30 4:37 Updated: 2009/11/30 4:37 |
Quite a regular ![]() ![]() Joined: 2009/4/11 From: Japan Posts: 44 |
The other thing I wanted to say is I'm not sure the commenters are being very fair to TEC.
With people like Bishop Robinson, there is no mistake. The earlier problem within the religion (at least what I saw of it in Philadelphia), is that the same gay people weren't "out" about it. You could not, if need be, say which so-called conservative was really not just using the denomination for other purposes. You didn't know who was who and what was what. As a result, there was a lot of abuses and manipulations going on as a result. Now, it's crystal clear what TEC is doing. And without casting judgments on any people, it's all clear for everyone. So you say about "whine" and whiners, but you know, this kind of argument has been going on for at least twenty, and probably more like 35 years. It's boring at this point (maybe that is the real point of the Listening Exercise.) And nobody bothered to really organize for the things you wanted. It sounds more like wanting to have something to say to say, about something you can't end anyhow. |
| otispage2 | Posted: 2009/11/30 9:17 Updated: 2009/11/30 9:19 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2007/3/14 From: Posts: 615 |
Respectfully, Hoofin, I disagree with your statement, "I'm not sure the commenters are being very fair to TEC."
I disagree because "I am sure" the "commenters" are accurate in their statements (and my own) supporting Virtue's excellent analysis. Why am I sure? I have specific knowledge (proof), besides that provided in Virtue's statement, that ECUSA/TEC has devised and orchestrated the "listening" strategy as a part of a "reconciliation" tactic. |
| Hoofin | Posted: 2009/11/30 9:48 Updated: 2009/11/30 10:08 |
Quite a regular ![]() ![]() Joined: 2009/4/11 From: Japan Posts: 44 |
Otispage,
I guess what I am saying is that the parties having it out in the open is an improvement over the previous situation. But don't just take my opinion for word by any means. Here is someone who wrote in 1992 about the situation in Philadelphia in the 1960's: http://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/24/opinion/l-what-episcopal-church-can-do-about-sex-abuse-by-priests-260792.html Richard L. Huff said in the New York Times that these things were going on in the 1960's even. It's hard for me to feel that it was some big secret. As Huff states, Quote: You [the New York Times] report the resignation from the Episcopal priesthood of the Rev. Wallace A. Frey, after allegations involving sexual abuse of young male parishioners (news article, Oct. 7), as if such things are something new in the Episcopal Church. They aren't. So at least now, TEC is being honest, for whatever it is worth to people who want some other situation. The writer was writing, in 1992, about the 1960's. And fact is, you can't change people, so things are what they are. I am not saying that people who want a conservative Anglicism of the Catholic religion should give up. It's a free country and each can profess his or her beliefs. So go to town, right? I am just saying this is the thing: TEC is what it is, and probably for longer than anyone wants to admit. It's nice that David Virtue did an analysis, but on the other hand, it's no surprise what was found. |
| dvirtue | Posted: 2009/11/30 10:41 Updated: 2009/11/30 10:41 |
Webmaster ![]() ![]() Joined: 2004/1/2 From: Posts: 175 |
Thank you for drawing this to my attention. Now changed.
David |
| otispage2 | Posted: 2009/11/30 19:31 Updated: 2009/11/30 19:31 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2007/3/14 From: Posts: 615 |
Respectfully, Hoofin, it appears after saying you were “not sure” that you are sure after all.
But one aspect of your statement in criticizing Virtue’s article does not ring true with me: You suggest that TEC today is "being honest" about the homosexual deceit in the past. Has it occured to you that TEC by "being honest" today is in fact confirming the dishonesty of same-sex sexual behavior in the past and today that is clearly and unequivocally condemned in Scripture? About being "sure", I suggest God is as declared in Scripture. (Rom. 1:26,27, Lev. 18:22, 20:13, 1 Cor. 6:9, 1 Tim. 1:10, Gen. 19: 1-9, Judg. 22:19 and 1 Kin. 14:24) I believe Virtue’s assessment hits the mark. |
| rubio | Posted: 2009/12/1 1:22 Updated: 2009/12/1 1:22 |
Just popping in ![]() ![]() Joined: 2009/11/26 From: Posts: 12 |
...succinct, insightful, a brilliant assessment of the "listening process".
We were introduced to it on our arrival in North America back in 2000. From day one, it became apparent that you hadn't really "listened" to the bishop if you didn't change your mind and accept his unbiblical distortions. We didn't. So we were asked to listen again. And we listened and listened and it wasn't reciprocated - there was no debate, no exchanging convictions, just a powerful group who touted "tolerance" toward everyone except, of course, those who dared disagree with them. Their excuse for terminating a clerical license? ".....you weren't listening to us" Thanks David...keep it up and tell it like it really is - we're listening. |
| Hoofin | Posted: 2009/12/1 13:48 Updated: 2009/12/1 13:48 |
Quite a regular ![]() ![]() Joined: 2009/4/11 From: Japan Posts: 44 |
Yes, otispage, I agree that we ought to agree or disagree respectfully.
All I can post here is my opinion. I know that it's right because it's mine. And even if it seems to change (which I don't think it did), it's still right because it's still mine. I am not disagreeing with you that the Bible condemns homosexuality in places. The parts you cite are no doubt correct. And personally, I think that the kind of practices, where men and women "hide" behind conservative structures of religion in order to, well, basically, "score" are wrong. This and its variants are too frequent not only in the Episcopal Church, but in other denominations. No doubt the same thing is going on in breakaway and continuing parishes. You say about the Bible's strong language, but also I feel you should consider the words of Jesus. In Matthew 7:1, it says He says, "judge not, lest ye be judged." This, I take it, means that you should temper your criticism of others because we all have our flaws. I don't think it means everyone gets a free pass for whatever they do. But it means we should consider the situation more deeply than we think we should. Personally, I think that the "conservatives" of the Episcopal Church got a raw deal that was decades in the making. But also, that they saw the raw deal coming for that same amount of time and never really did anything to plan for a fair and Christian response. They just expected everyone else to be as "shocked! shocked!" as they were, and then, later, things would be fixed. My point is that the gay movement has been going on in the Church of England probably as long as the Church of England. Only now there are a lot more, ehem, outward signs of it. Types and shadows had their ending. As I said, to be fair to TEC, they are just being more up-front about what has been there before. I don't disagree with David Virtue's reporting on the Listening Exercise. It's just simply that it's, in a way, not really news. The (true) conservatives have a right to feel they have been dealt an injustice that affects their religious practice. They believed certain things about how people should comport themselves in their sexual lives, and then suddenly some people came along and changed the rules. And since it's a sensitive subject, there is bound to be upset about it. The way the civil law is set up, in a hierarchical polity church, the hierarchy gets its way. So what happened in the Episcopal Church is that what was the minority got the votes of the majority, and started changing the practices of the faith. Obviously, since the differences were irreconcilable, someone was going to pushed to exit door. I don't know why this wasn't clear 20 or 30 years ago. In defense of gays, I think everyone is entitled to the protection of the law and to civil rights. So I don't see gay civil marriage as a problem, since at civil law marriage is a contract. I am sure you will agree that gays are entitled to protection of civil rights. On the religious side, I agree wtih you that there are issues when some people believe that sacraments were made for specific situations and that these situations are specified and unchanging. This is religious belief, and at least in America, no civil authority is supposed to dictate religious belief. It is obvious what is going to happen is that the right of General Convention to change religious practices is going to trump the people who believe in the prior practices. Just like the last 35 years. I don't know what to tell you. I am just saying that what Virtue has shown is no news flash. I am neither here nor there on this. I am still thinking about it. If God creates everybody, why would he create gay people and then condemn them? It doesn't sound like the God of Abraham that we know, who usually goes after people for a hurtful sin against OTHER people or against Himself. I can see where gay people who are pushing themselves on people who are rejecting them would be a sin. But it seems to me that gay people who just want to live life and be respected as persons and in their relationships would not be offensive to God. Despite what the Old Testament (which Christ criticized and rejected in parts), and St. Paul (who was not Jesus and whose works are divine by opinion) has said. |
| otispage2 | Posted: 2009/12/1 20:17 Updated: 2009/12/2 1:49 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2007/3/14 From: Posts: 615 |
Again, respectfully, Hoofin, you state a question:
"If God creates everybody, why would he create gay people and then condemn them?" My answer: I believe God condemns Homosexuals’ behaviors the same way he condemned my womanizing, the same way He condemns murder and every type of evil and "unrighteous" conduct. I believe God condemns the Homosexual Agenda -- an Agenda that insists that homosexual behavior is normal in its applications of gays, lesbians and bed-swapping bisexuals. I believe God condemns the Homosexuals' vicious attempts to convince children and young adults that their behavior is okay, as expressed falsely in a pretention of love, where sexual lust is clearly the game being played. I believe the Homosexuals' attempts to rationalize their behavior as being "righteous", where both historic cultural and religious traditions confirm it is not, is a stench in God's nose. The fact that TEC and the Anglican Communion (in its various parts) succumb to the Homosexuals' lies is an exemplification of unbelief in Scripture and a testimony of God’s Wrath as specified in Romans 1:18-32. Read it and weep! |
| CH-Discern | Posted: 2009/12/2 0:41 Updated: 2009/12/2 0:41 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2009/10/10 From: Posts: 259 |
Go "O"!! You make me smile. Truth always does.
|
| esniii | Posted: 2009/12/2 17:50 Updated: 2009/12/2 17:50 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2004/3/29 From: Posts: 390 |
"If God creates everybody, why would he create gay people and then condemn them?... it seems to me that gay people who just want to live life and be respected as persons and in their relationships would not be offensive to God."
Why would He create Tiger Woods, who is a marvellous athlete and a seemingly decent person, and then condemn him? Why would He create Martin Luther, a great doctor of the church, who also happened to record anti-Semitic feelings in his commentaries? We are NONE of us perfect in God's eyes. Some homosexuals may be more sensitive to emotional life in the people around them (not to generalize a stereotype, but it seems true in my personal observation); God wants them to use that gift in His service, not to crucify it with their own personal desires. I suspect every one of us fails in this regard, to some degree. It's not new news, perhaps, but I think Dr. Virtue's post helps to clarify the psychological strangle-hold being inflicted upon the Episcopal church right now. |
| CH-Discern | Posted: 2009/12/3 1:13 Updated: 2009/12/3 1:13 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2009/10/10 From: Posts: 259 |
TEC promotion of the 'listening process' has always been a one-way street. What hypocrisy! When have they ever been willing to listen to conservative Anglicans? The 'listening' idea has always been a subtle, dishonest, deceptive ploy. As others have said, for TEC leaders, it is not really about listening, it is about indoctrination in revisionism.
|
| Hoofin | Posted: 2009/12/3 6:52 Updated: 2009/12/3 6:52 |
Quite a regular ![]() ![]() Joined: 2009/4/11 From: Japan Posts: 44 |
Everyone's points are well taken. I initially started out by saying that TEC's being open and the gays being open about things is an improvement over what had existed in the times before.
I am no doubt more "liberal", by traditional standards, than a lot of the posters here. I am not as liberal as many of the TECers. Also, I think I am libertarian along some different social vectors. I think people should stay out of other people's personal business, and conversely not impose on others in a way that offends their personal liberty. I read Romans in its entirety. What I think St. Paul saw, was that the Rome of that time was something that a Hellenic Jew and a man influenced by the Pharisees would be repulsed by. He was trying to build and protect a mission church in Rome, essentially, and so he laid out what he saw as the proper ways to behave. No doubt, because the Rome he saw was a real den. Since he was an early Christian, but of course also a Jew, it should also be no surprise that he listed these things. This is a religion built out of the Old Testament. What I'm saying is that people's judgment ought to be tempered. It is one thing if someone is trying to impose on YOU, and other if this is how they are. I also think people should read St. Paul in light of the whole work, and in connection with the Gospels. I realize that this view sounds suspiciously like the "opening bid" in the social liberal movement in TEC. Like the nose under the camel's tent (no pun meant on the desert origins of the faith.) Of course, once the left wing of TEC gets "A", then they go for "B", "C", "D", etc. which is what gets everyone so upset. Then, there are those who use the conservative aspects of communal worship in order to do bad things. I think there was an 81-year-old in Phialdelphia who brought a case from things 60 years ago about that, recently. I see two things: a theological dispute and a big property fight. David Virtue is right that people are probably being induced by the Listening Exercise to be a little more "tolerant" than they themselves choose to be. This sort of thing where the line between tolerance and submission gets blurred. But again, the other side of the matter is that TEC is being honest. I think they should get points for that. That's the theological dispute. The property dispute, the one everyone here keeps losing at, is that the civil courts won't tie their First Amendment beliefs into the property they use for communal worship. It's embarrassing to see people get all worked up on how their First Amendment beliefs entitle them to get their way with property. You're being pushed out. And as far as the civil law is concerned, you can discuss Romans 1:18 at your new Sunday services in the Denny's down the road from your old parish. Making the case for why TEC is so liberal now is counterproductive if it is a means to put things "right", except in those few states like Virginia (former confederate state) where the judicial power structure enjoys the idea of organizations splitting up over "irreconcilable differences". Texas--a state that has been in five or six different countries as well as the confederacy--is another area of possible success. This is also meant to be respectful, but I can't understand why people would not appreciate the realities of that. |
| otispage2 | Posted: 2009/12/4 11:57 Updated: 2009/12/4 12:01 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2007/3/14 From: Posts: 615 |
Again, respectfully, Hoofin, your conclusion "but I can't understand why people would not appreciate the realities of that" suggests to me (and this is only my personal belief) your lack of understanding of the "realities". Why?
Your views and historic speculations regarding Paul and Romans are not supported by the substantial number of commentaries and authorities I have had the pleasure to read and come to understand. God's wrath is a reality manifested in TEC today! Your view here suggests to me the irreverent understanding of Scripture that plagues TEC's spiritual resolve. But here is where "the rubber meets the road" for me in considering your assessment: In concluding that "TEC is being honest" I believe you subscribe to its evident deceit, a deceit that clearly undermines "the faith once given". That's it, clear and simple. Again, respectfully. |
| Hoofin | Posted: 2009/12/4 14:06 Updated: 2009/12/4 14:06 |
Quite a regular ![]() ![]() Joined: 2009/4/11 From: Japan Posts: 44 |
Otispage, if you want to go back to Romans, let's look at the very next chapter---Romans 2:
Quote: 1-4 - Now if you feel inclined to set yourself up as a judge of those who sin, let me assure you, whoever you are, that you are in no position to do so. For at whatever point you condemn others you automatically condemn yourself, since you, the judge, commit the same sins. God's judgment, we know, is utterly impartial in its action against such evil-doers. What makes you think that you who so readily judge the sins of others, can consider yourself beyond the judgment of God? Are you, perhaps, misinterpreting God's generosity and patient mercy towards you as weakness on his part? Don't you realize that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? St. Paul says this right after the chapter where you quote Romans 1:18-32. I know there are "text proofing" Christians, and I am sure you are not one of them. But there are also Christians who don't turn the page. And I wonder about that. Like I say, TEC is being honest. This is the theological interpretation of the people who got voted in to run it. What the people who disagreed or have a different opinion became was the minority. The minority has its say, the majority gets its way. I agree with the point that many people who promote "tolerance" are actually trying to seek submission to things the listener disagrees with. Although you may condemn them, the very same St. Paul who says that the acts are condemnable says that you should not. That it is up to God. So this is fact. It's the very same Romans that you quoted. One of the criticisms of the traditionalist movement is that the people within it act like they know the hearts of the people who came before. For what the liberals are accused of "making things up", how can you conclude something without appreciating everything that St. Paul had to say? As I said, what is going on here is what is called a disagreement. One where, unfortunately, the people pursuing change have the legal advantage. I don't think any of these topics would be an issue if property were not at issue. In America, each can believe as he or she pleases. The trouble is when you are worshipping in a facility that is technically, if not actually, controlled by the faction that is against what you believe. I can only say about what I see. I am not a big fan of everything that comes out of the Gay Movement. By no means. And some of it is honestly beyond the pale. But practically, you folks who continue to repeat the same things about "shocked, shocked!" really need to invent a time machine. The world changed. If you wanted to have some kind of continuing practice of worship with facilities attached to that act, you need to organize for that. Not just you, Otispage, but some others write as if the hand of God is going to come down and rearrange the politics of the Episcopal Church. I don't think that's going to happen. I remember people who damn near made a practice of this sort of complaining at a church I attended in Philadelphia, that was in FiFA and then left it. Looking back, it makes me feel that their idea of Christian worship was really just complaining about contemporary times. |
| rdrjames | Posted: 2009/12/4 23:25 Updated: 2009/12/4 23:25 |
Not too shy to talk ![]() ![]() Joined: 2005/6/25 From: Posts: 25 |
Whose picture is at the top of this post? I know it's not David Virtue. I don't think it's the late Fr. Wolpe. who it it? I just wish he'd either grow a real beard, or shave. He reminds me of so many clergy who want to be 'au courant' and look like some movie stars who shave ever other week.
Rdr. James Disgusted with the sartorial stuff. Either do or don't is my motto |
| rdrjames | Posted: 2009/12/4 23:32 Updated: 2009/12/4 23:32 |
Not too shy to talk ![]() ![]() Joined: 2005/6/25 From: Posts: 25 |
I don't care for one minute if clergy are 'gay' or 'straight' or whatever. If they are married in the Christian sense,they are faithful to their own wife (wives might give a different context). If they are not married, they are not sexually active with anyone at all. I don't think this is any different from what St. Paul was thinking of, nor of the ideal of Christian sexual behavior for the last 2000 years.
Why would anyone have a problem with that? Well, I suppose some might.... Rdr.James Olympia, WA |
| Hesychios | Posted: 2009/12/5 3:31 Updated: 2009/12/5 3:31 |
Not too shy to talk ![]() ![]() Joined: 2007/4/1 From: Posts: 30 |
Systematic desensitization is not at all new, although Dr, Wolpe gets some credit for describing it. It can be said that this has gone on for centuries in some cases (Marian Hypertophy comes to mind.)
It is part of the toolkit missioners try to apply in hostile environments. I think we can accept that the entire period before Constantine was an example of orthodox Christianity working within the pagan culture for acceptance. It is, in a way, a type of salesmanship. Aside from it's obvious political uses (it has been applied, for good or ill, all over the place and from age to age) it thrives in a herd mentality, and (Jim Jones not withstanding) may not actually be driven consciously by specific people for a directly specific purpose (although Satan may ultimately be behind it). People do innately understand this, anyone who has had teenagers is likely to have experienced or witnessed the process first hand. Clearly, the ordination of women was another such case. Given enough time, I can be very effective. |
| Luther | Posted: 2009/12/7 7:20 Updated: 2009/12/7 7:20 |
Just popping in ![]() ![]() Joined: 2009/9/8 From: Posts: 19 |
Hoofin - you make the normal error of those who do not know Jesus Christ as their Lord and Master. "Your opinion" is not "right" because it is "yours". Nothing could be further from the truth.
The opinion of anyone can only be right if it is in harmony with the revealed will of God - as given in the Holy Scriptures. Yours is not in harmony with God's therefore it is wrong. Simple. |
| Hoofin | Posted: 2009/12/7 12:32 Updated: 2009/12/7 12:32 |
Quite a regular ![]() ![]() Joined: 2009/4/11 From: Japan Posts: 44 |
No, no, what I said was that I know my opinion is right, as an opinion, because it's mine.
People tell you that your opinion is wrong. Well, how do they know this? What you are saying is that you think my opinion is inconsistent with what Jesus said. OK. That is your opinion. Fact is, Jesus said nothing about the gays. What St. Paul said, he tempered in the very next chapter. It's like I said, I feel TEC should get points for being out in the open about things that were kept in the shadows before. I appreciate that there is now a big theological and practice dispute as a result of these changes that have come along. Some people might feel their role is to condemn per Romans 1:18-32. I think there should be tolerance. When I was regularly attending, I saw the problem first hand, and it was one of using conservative structures to hide, well, non-conservative practices. |
| otispage2 | Posted: 2009/12/8 9:41 Updated: 2009/12/8 15:40 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2007/3/14 From: Posts: 615 |
Frankly, Hoofin, Luther nails it!
You appear to me to be a homosexual apologist supporting TEC's agenda. You are certainly missing Christ's revelation in Scripture since you conclude, "Some people might feel their role is to condemn per Romans 1:18-32" First of all, the act of condemning is God's alone as confirmed in Romans 1:32: "that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but give hearty approval to those who practice them.” Regarding being "right", Rom 2 is a transitional statement from God's condemnation in Rom 1 to the conclusion in Rom 3:10 "There is NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE". Roms 1 and 2 up to 3:20 point to the glorious revelation provided by "the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe" in Rom 3:21,22! THIS IS THE REVELATION! GOD'S RIGHTEOUSNESS TO THOSE WHO BELIEVE AND HAVE FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST. The arrogance of your assertion that you "know my opinion is right, as an opinion, because it's mine" defies any logical truth. It falsely assumes that your "righteousness" is right alone since it is yours. It appears you do not understand the message on "righteousness" in Romans stated above. The same illogic holds in your defense that TEC is honest in that "TEC should get points for being out in the open about things that were kept in the shadows before." The implication is TEC is and has always been okay since it is honest about the behavior of homosexual sin without demanding repentance. TEC's "honesty" is a deceit that contradicts Christ's revelation in Scripture. This is where "the rubber meets the road". I am truly sorry you are an advocate of this deceit. |
| Bulwark | Posted: 2009/12/10 13:47 Updated: 2009/12/10 13:47 |
Not too shy to talk ![]() ![]() Joined: 2009/7/10 From: Posts: 34 |
The progression of liberal heresy is pretty clear.
1. An attitude or belief is seen as morally wrong or theologically heretical for centuries. 2. Liberals ask for tolerance and dialog about it. 3. Liberals ask that their view be accepted as equal to other views. 4. Their view becomes inevitable as society "progresses." 5. Those who hold different views are named as "intolerant" "homophobic" etc. and finally... 6. Those who hold views contrary to liberalism are not allowed to speak. In case you haven't noticed, we are now culturally between #5 and #6. |
| dvirtue | Posted: 2009/12/11 13:13 Updated: 2009/12/11 13:14 |
Webmaster ![]() ![]() Joined: 2004/1/2 From: Posts: 175 |
The picture is of Canon Philip Groves who heads the Listening Process.
David W. Virtue VIRTUEONLINE |
| gregory | Posted: 2009/12/12 10:51 Updated: 2009/12/12 10:51 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2004/8/4 From: Nflorida Posts: 4436 |
Hoofin, you seem to talk out of both ends-ofyourmouth;
"What you are saying is that you think my opinion is inconsistent with what Jesus said. OK. That is your opinion. Fact is, Jesus said nothing about the gays." Fact is Jesus did have things to say about homosexuality http://www.1928bcp.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=827 Blessings, gregory |
| Hoofin | Posted: 2009/12/13 9:35 Updated: 2009/12/13 9:35 |
Quite a regular ![]() ![]() Joined: 2009/4/11 From: Japan Posts: 44 |
Look it, it surely it isn't my intention to get into a back-and-forth debate with people with strong views. Which is why I usually don't do chatboards except those by people whose moderation of it I trust.
The poster who said they were "between 5 and 6", I think it's more like "between 4 and 5", where the liberals have their views and you might get called names. To the poster who said I was a big "apologist": I don't think so. There are a number of things about the Gay Movement that I am no fan of. This goes rather to respecting people as people. Also, if I give an opinion and someone (like you) says that I am "not right", well, it's an opinion and I know I am right in my opinion. You keep wanting to play around with the wording (one sign of an internet bickerer.) My opinion is mine, so I know if it's right. You might disagree with it. That is YOUR opinion. So . . . To the poster who referred to Matthew 5 ("Sermon on the Mount"). If you read the whole thing, there is no condemnation of homosexuality. There is a condemnation of divorce. I think when Jesus said that He came to fulfill the law, I think He meant that His new teachings were what the law was meant to be. I don't think He meant that He came to enforce the specific laws of the Talmud. If Jesus did, then why did He say: "the Sabbath is meant for man, and not man for the Sabbath?" Why did the Jewish elders get so pissed at his novel interpretations of the Old Testament? I appreciate the idea that Jesus as God was "part" of the Old Testament revelations. But that reasoning seems to defeat one of the central tenets of the religion, what that Jesus was a New Covenant between God and the followers of Jesus. It also suggests that Jews implicitly follow Jesus, but I bet many Jews would strongly disagree with that. They consider Jesus to have been a false messiah and, in some ways, a radical interpretation of the belief in a God of Abraham. So I don't think it's a good idea to rely on the Old Testament for support about what Jesus had to say in the New Testament. In most cases, He is diametrically opposed. And if He is author of both Old and New, then why did He change His mind? |
| CH-Discern | Posted: 2009/12/13 18:57 Updated: 2009/12/13 18:57 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2009/10/10 From: Posts: 259 |
RIGHT OPINIONS
Of course, no one has an opinion if he thinks it is wrong! Conversely, I hold all of my opinions because, temporarily at least, I think they are right. But all of us are qualified for humility, for none of us knows it all. Therefore, only God can REALLY have a 'right opinion.' If we assert too strongly that our opinion is necessarily right, we will be correctly regarded as arrogant. My humble opinion (meaning that I am not God): Homosexual activity is simply a subset of a much broader category of sexual sins. While scripture contains clear and strongly worded references to same-sex activities as sinful, the primary focus of scripture regarding sexual sin refers to all sexual relationships outside of marriage of a man and a woman. In fact, scripture, from beginning to end consistently calls all such behavior as sin (whether adultery, fornication, incest, bestiality, homosexuality, etc.). This is where Jesus did indeed have some very definite things to say, which in the more general sense, would include homosexual behavior. Jesus Himself backed the OT scriptures in saying that marriage was about a man and a woman. Jesus did not speak of sexual relationships only in a negative context, of course; He mentioned the husband/wife relationship a number of times. What Jesus DID say: "BUT AT THE BEGINNING OF CREATION GOD 'MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. THEREFORE, WHAT GOD HAS JOINED TOGETHER, LET MAN NOT SEPARATE." (Mark 10:6-9) Although Jesus appeared to have a more flexible understanding of a number of Laws (the Sabbath, food, etc.), He was was more conservative and strict about sexual things than even the Pharisees and Chief Priests; even lustful thoughts were regarded by Jesus as sinful (Matthew 5:28). |
| Hoofin | Posted: 2009/12/14 14:56 Updated: 2009/12/14 14:56 |
Quite a regular ![]() ![]() Joined: 2009/4/11 From: Japan Posts: 44 |
Ok I am officially giving up on this thread, since we are just going in circles.
But as parting shots, this much: 1) opinions themselves can't be wrong. Maybe "way out there", but not wrong. 2) the bible defenses for being against gays having relationships are weaker than what Paul said, and in some cases, a stretch. I honestly don't think Jesus gave the attention you folks do. 3) I am not a big apologist for the Gay Community. It has produced some bad as well as good. I am just pointing out that TEC is being clearer about things that had always been. 4) I don't think it's appropriate to lump gay people in with murderers and other bad people, as someone above had done. The time you spend attacking gay people, you could be out converting more people to Jesus. |

























