By the Rev. Drew Foisie, Curate for Christian Formation
Old Donation, Virginia Beach
It’s a good
question, actually. The question is really a straight up look into what sin is
and what sin is not. But that’s a big question. Not an easy question. Look up
sin in the bible dictionary and you will get reams of entries on the matter.
You’ll learn about “moralistic” sin, “monistic” sin, “personalistic” sin and
all sorts of other fun things to bring up at cocktail parties. The simplest and
most universally agreed upon answer to this question, however, might just be
that sin is whatever separates us from God, whatever severs our relationship
with the Creator. To do that, to make that happen, usually involves a choice
to, in some form or other, either take life from others, or reject and walk
away from Life being offered to you. When in the Garden and confronted by the
serpent Adam and Eve decided, after some “reasoning”, to walk away from life
and into death (Gen 3:2). After eating the fruit and experiencing shame for
their nakedness they were later led out of the Garden. But before going God
made for them garments. He gave them what they needed to begin their next life
– one in which they would learn how to live again. One that would involve
loving and trusting God with all their heart, mind and strength and loving
their neighbor as themselves.
God’s people continue to be surrounded by “Garden” moments. The story goes on. God gives us trees from which to eat and others from which not to eat. We face moments of choice to either pluck the fruit of slander, or pluck the fruit of peace. One is sin and death, and the other is Life. One sends you deeper into God’s Garden, one further away. We face moments to either pick the fruit of loving ourselves as one whom God loves and created in his image, or pick the fruit of dismantling our dignity with negative self talk. One leads into Life, the other away from life. Throughout scripture God is continually calling us out of death and into Life. Jesus said I come to give you life and give it to you abundantly. Jesus also said you will know a tree by its fruit. So when thinking about sin and same-gender relationships could it be wise to first seek out and find what fruit of the Spirit may present in those relationships? Is there love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, generosity, self-control, and faithfulness? Are these fruits evident both within the relationship and outside the relationship in the context of community? If so, might such a relationship be worth blessing?
Ben Carey MD
ReplyDeleteGalilee Church
Virginia Beach
Please see my prior posts on Reverend Walsh's site and on Reverend Kerr's site. My posts subsequent to April 4 were removed; my last posts were an attempt to address the nature of sin. I will attempt again to address the nature of sin and how I think that it relates to homosexual sexual activity.
1. In order to understand the nature of sin, I suggest looking at original sin as a model for the very nature of sin. God gave Adam a very specific command in Genesis 2: 17 and yet Eve, and then Adam, made a conscious and deliberate decision to disobey God. So why did they make this decision to be disobedient? As we look at the serpent's seduction of Eve's will, he began first by asking her exactly what did God say?. Satan was described as more subtle than any beast and he is attempting to question Eve's exact understanding of God's command (Genesis 3: 1). When Eve correctly quotes God's command (Genesis 3: 2-3), Satan then changes his approach and he appeals to her pride (Genesis 3:4-5). Eve then succumbs to Satan's seduction and deliberately disobeys God. Therefore, one of the characteristics of sin is the deliberate disobeying of God's will for us.
2. Another characteristic of sin is that, at its core, it is against God. When the prophet Nathan confronts King David about the king's adulterous relationship with Bathsheba(2 Samuel 11-12) and David has to face his sin of having Uriah the Hittite murdered in battle under Joab, David writes his painful lament and confession in Psalm 51. 4 when he states "Against thee, thee only, have I sinned and done this evil in thy sight:" David is recognizing, after being confronted by Nathan, that his sin ultimately is against God, and not against Uriah, Bathsheba, Joab, or his people. Rather his decision to engage in adultery is a sin against God and clearly in violation of Exodus 20: 14.
3. Sin occurs when we make the decision to disobey God and our decision to disobey God occurs when we are seduced by Satan's sly slippery slope of sin, especially sexual sin.
4. Christ has warned us about being deceived by man and by false prophets (Matthew 24: 4, 11) and Paul has warned us about struggles with demonic forces (Ephesians 6: 11-12). Yet, we often choose to remain in denial of Satan's intent.
5. When Christ was tempted in the desert by
Satan (Matthew 4; 1-11), He could have called upon His Father, the Holy Spirit, and / or the heavenly hosts; however he called upon the power of scripture siting Deuteronomy 8: 3; 6: 16; and 6: 13. Christ did not state that he had a special revelation from the Holy Spirit, rather He called upon the power and the sanctity of scripture.
Assuming that my posts are not deleted, as they have been in the past, I will begin to tie in the nature of sin with how I view homosexual sexual activity.
Ben Carey MD
Psychiatrist
Jean Madden
ReplyDeleteSt. Aidan's
Virginia Beach
I see that this format is labeled a conversation, so I will try to keep it in that spirit. I read Ben's post and read the scriptures he posts, and I see his points. But just last night I was reading a book that made the point that as Episcopalians, our faith is based on scripture, tradition, and reason. It's one of the reasons I returned to the Episcopal church after years being away. So there's a balance.
If we are to keep this a conversation (and I see to the left that that is one of our goals - to foster conversation, which means we must do our best to keep open minds if we are to post here), then I will respond to Drew's original comments. I used to think that homosexuality was a sin, but then I met a homosexual couple - one was a deacon in the church and the other was the organist. They were raising two HIV-positive children. They were incredible role models in so many ways: loving, caring, tender parents, deeply spiritual. It totally blew me out of the water, and humbled me to the core. It embarrasses me now to think how judgmental I had been, how I had lumped a group of people into a category without ever getting to know them as individuals (these were the first gay people I had known up close). Doesn't it say something in the Bible about judging not, lest you be judged? Wow - suddenly they were the teachers and I was the student in the school of life.
Now I know gay people and straight people (and tall people and short people, and so on). Some are to be admired, and some less so. "Ye shall know them by their fruits." Or something like that. But far be it for me to judge - if God pulled any of our lives wide open with a microscope for the world to see, we would all be quite humbled, I am sure.
Am I wandering? Maybe so. It's Saturday morning and I've only had one cup of tea. But here are my points:
1. I don't think homosexuality is a sin.
2. I think we need to be careful about judging other people, lest we get judged with the same yardstick. I think God would rather have us err on the side of love than judgment.
3. I think we need to balance out scripture with tradition and reason - those are the pillars of our faith (or the legs of our stool - ha ha!).
4. This is a very difficult subject for a lot of people - I think we need to approach it with love (see #2). "Now abide faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love." I Corinthians 13:13
Jean Madden
Your sister in Christ
Jean,
DeleteThank you for your post and the description of the amazing Christian ministry two people have carried out while in the midst of a same-gender relationship. I contend that it is people like you describe who have brought before the church this very important discussion. How can their lives exhibit all the fruits of the Spirit and embody the baptismal vows if their sexual activity is an abomination to the Lord? You rightly refer to the words of Jesus, “good trees bear good fruit.”
Let me say one thing about your statement that homosexuality is not a sin. I would amend it to say that it is not inherently sinful. It is important to acknowledge that, just as with heterosexual activity, certain homosexual activities are destructive. As I speak with faithful members of the Episcopal Church I sense they hear the church saying anything goes. That, in fact, is not what the church is saying, nor do I think it is what you believe. Still, it is an important point to clarify. I look forward to your thoughts on this.
Thanks again for your comment. Please keep reading and I look forward to seeing more comments from you.
Keith Emerson
St. Paul’s, Suffolk
Jean,
DeleteYour reply is based essentially on anecdotal experience and sentiment. The Bible, Tradition, and Reason (as seen in Natural Law) are quite clear that homosexual practice (as opposed to mere orientation) is improper.
James Deviese, Christ the King
Christ and Grace Parish in Petersburg
ReplyDeleteI think that taking 1 or 2 verses out of the Bible and using them to support anti-gay proposals is something I associate more with fundamentalist groups than with the Episcopal church. Life is not always simple, as the others here have posted. For me, a straight woman in her late 60's, it simply doesn't matter as long as the relationship is mutual and loving.
Ben Carey MD
ReplyDeleteGalilee Church
Virginia Beach
Jean Madden and the Christ and Grace Anonymous Post above.
Thank you for taking the time to post your thoughts. It is my understanding that posts may be removed if the individual fails to identify the name of the person posting the blog and we should all identify who we are so that we can have a conversation on this site. I am not sure what other posts you have read and if you have posted anything other than above.
I encourage you to look at my thoughts begining March 7 under Revernend Eileen Walsh followed by my subsequent thoughts under Reverend Kerr. As I have written exrensively over the past month, I do not want to duplicate what I have previously stated, but I am quite willing to go into detail about why I have made these posts. An important point to understand is that I am differentiating between homosexual sexual activity as a sin and not homosexual attraction per se. Specifically, I am addressing the choice of homosexual sexual behavior as a sin as opposed to homosexual attraction or feelings which I view as fundamentally different.
Please look at my other thoughts and then let me know what you want me to address from my perspective as a "Traditionalist", Christian, and / or psychiatrist. I am quite willing to address Matthew 7: 1 in light of 2 Timothy 3: 16-17 if that is an area that you want me to share my thoughts. I am a cradle Episcopalian and, like some others who have posted from a conservative perspective, am dismayed at what is happening in the Episcopal Church.
Ben Carey MD
Psychiatrist
Keith Emerson and Jean Madden,
ReplyDeleteKetih's point is what I have been trying to state previously; that is that homosexuality, per se is not a sin as we do not have a choice over what we feel. We do, however, have a choice over what we do. If we choose to engage in sexual activity outside of God's plan, then we are sinning. The Bible is replete with admonitions about sexual behavior, not sexual feelings / orientation. (See I Corinthians 10: 13). I do not see a fundamental difference betwen the sin of hetrerosexual adultery and homosexual sexual activity although the latter has a number of health implications. Sometimes, we make decisions that put us at risk for sexual sin, but it is also a choice we make to put ourselves at risk for sexual sin; fortunately God has provided a response that we can make (I Corinthians 6: 18-20).
I have been trying to get to the point that we are in control of what we do because God gave man free will and most of the admonitions I see in the Bible are about what we do, not what we feel.
The only exception that comes quickly to me without looking at my Bible is Matthew 5: 28 in which Christ stated "Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart" and this is different from Exodus 20: 14 in which the commandment is "Thou shalt not commit adultery". Sexual sin, as well as most sin, begins in the mind before it manifests itself in the body; therefore lust precedes the act.
What does this mean then for the expression of sexual behavior? What is God's plan for man? How do we fulfill the Fruit of the Spirit?
Ben Carey MD
Psychiatrist
Dr. Carey -
DeleteI want to respond to your comment about the "health implications" of "homosexual sexual activity". Are you saying there are not "health implications" to heterosexual adultery? Last I learned there are health implications with any sexual activity (heterosexual or homosexual) depending on the activity and what type of protection you choose. And those health implications are reduced when two healthy consenting adults choose to engage in sexual activity in the confines of a monogamous relationship.
I would also like to reference your first comment on this post regarding Eve and Sin, and ask you again to note a previous question I asked from an earlier post. If there is no room for interpretation of the parts of the bible which describe homosexuality to be a sin, how is it that we have evolved to understand other acts described as sinful in the bible to become acceptable (ie - eating shrimp)? Is there room for such evolution in the matter of homosexuality? If not, why not?
Juli,
DeletePlease see my prior posts under Reverend Walsh and Reverend Kerr; I went to some length describing the different types of the law: Ceremonial Law, Civil (Secular) Law and Moral Law which, I think addresses the second part of your post. After you have reviewed my thoughts, let me know if what I stated is not clear. You can contact me on this post or at bcarey8747@aol.com.
Regarding the first part of your post, I will avoid being graphic as I did on a prior post. However, I suggest that you read "And the Band Played On" which chronicles the AIDS epidemic with a significant part of the book devoted to the epidemic in San Francisco. After you have looked at this book, you will have a better idea what I am addressing. From 1986-1988, I was doing my fellowship in adddiction psychiatry in San Francisco and I evaluated and treated a number of homosexual males with HIV / AIDS. I was in training when the homosexual community adamantly demanded that the bath houses stay open even though Dr Marvin Silverman gave an order through his position in Public Health to close the bath houses for health reasons.
If this book does not clarify for you the unique risks of homosexual sexual activity, let me know by e mail and I will be more specific. I do not think it is appropriate in this public format to describe graphically this behavior.
Ben Carey MD
Psychiatrist
Ms. Edwards and Dr. Carey,
DeleteYes, there are such things as Ceremonial Law, Civil Law, and Moral Law within the Torah, however for the Israelites they were all moral laws that determined what it was to be Children of Israel. And we (the Christian Church) have expanded and changed our understanding of things we would consider "moral" or sexual sins in the past. A couple of instances come to my mind.
Divorce is the first. Christ condemned divorce, except in cases of unchastity (and then only in Matthew; Mark and Luke do not have that exception), yet TEC in the 20th century made allowances for divorce. We're not cavalier about it, but we allow divorce. One of the reasons is a reading of the scripture that takes into account the historical, cultural context in which Jesus spoke. Divorce in 1st century Palestine was solely from the man's point of view. Women in Jewish culture could not initiate divorce. Only husbands could initiate the action and the results were almost always damaging to the woman involved. A divorced woman had a loss in status, a loss in economic ability, and a loss in honor. To be a divorced woman was to be in an extremely vulnerable position. Christ's teaching, therefore (at least in some scholars' opinions) was designed to protect some of the weakest members of society, women. You should not divorce your wife and leave her impoverished and unprotected. In modern times, the Church has seen that it can be more damaging to someone to require them to remain married, for example to an abusive spouse. Times changed and, through study and prayer, our understanding of the reasons of scripture has changed. To be continued due to length...
James Medley
Eastern Shore Chapel
A second example is adultery. When the Ten Commandments were codified, adultery meant you didn't sleep with a married woman. A married man could sleep with a prostitute, or take a concubine, or even sleep with an unmarried virgin (if he were willing to pay the bride price after the fact and make her his wife) and he was not committing adultery. The only way a man (married or unmarried) could commit adultery was to sleep with another man's wife. But if women slept with anyone other than their husband, they were committing adultery, with all the penalties. This goes to the idea that women were property and you didn't take another man's property. This also applies to Jesus' teaching about adultery in Matthew 5:28. The same Greek word is used in both verse 28, normally translated as woman, and verse 31, normally translated as wife. In the context of Jesus' culture, and taking into account that Jesus was a good Jew, both instances probably should be translated as wife. Which means you shouldn't look at another man's wife with lust in your heart or you're committing adultery. Not an unmarried woman, or prostitute, or widow; we're talking about a married woman. Again, this ties back to a culture that considered women property and in which a man could only commit adultery with someone else's wife.
DeleteWe have expanded the definition of adultery in our day to include married men who sleep with someone other than their spouse. This comes from a reading of scripture that takes into account the context in which it was written, a patriarchal society, and coming to the conclusion that God is more equitable than we are. Adultery includes both men and women being unfaithful to their spouse. We believe that unfaithfulness is sinful and damages a person's relationship with God, whether you're a man or a woman.
Those are two instances where our ideas of sexual sin have changed because of greater understanding of the cultural context in which the scripture was written. I think for us to be faithful Christians, we have to allow for the possibility that our understanding of sexual sin in regards to same-gender relationships could also change. I'm not saying it will but we must be open to the possibility and keep an open mind to viewpoints that differ from our own.
I apologize for the length of my post.
James Medley
Eastern Shore Chapel-VA Beach
James,
DeleteThanks for this helpful analysis. It brings to mind Deuteronomy 22:13-29. There is something here instructive for the church today, but it would be difficult to find if one did not eschew a literal reading of the bible in favor of critical scholarship:
(13) If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her (14) and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” (15) then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. (16) Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. (17) Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, (18) and the elders shall take the man and punish him. (19) They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.
(20) If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, (21) she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.
(22) If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.
(23) If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, (24) you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.
(25) But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. (26) Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, (27) for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.
(28) If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, (29) he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
I doubt anyone in the Episcopal Church today would argue that God wants a virgin to marry her rapist. Perhaps a better biblical scholar than me can weigh in on if any aspect of this passage ever was actually practiced in ancient Israel.
Keith Emerson
St. Paul's, Suffolk
Barbara McLaughlin
ReplyDeleteSt. Christopher's
Portsmouth
Jean, Thank you for stating so eloquently exactly what I believe.
From Jean's post:
"1. I don't think homosexuality is a sin.
2. I think we need to be careful about judging other people, lest we get judged with the same yardstick. I think God would rather have us err on the side of love than judgment.
3. I think we need to balance out scripture with tradition and reason - those are the pillars of our faith (or the legs of our stool - ha ha!).
4. This is a very difficult subject for a lot of people - I think we need to approach it with love (see #2). "Now abide faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love." I Corinthians 13:13"
I'm waiting for the day when all those who wish to commit to a loving and caring relationship with God in the center are allowed in any religious ceremony.
Peace be with you,
Barbara McLaughlin
Ben Carey MD
ReplyDeleteGalilee Church
Virginia Beach
James+, Keith, Juli, et al,
As a lay person and Traditionalist, I will add my comments to this and other posts. I appreciate James+ expansion of the Law which I discussed briefly under Eileen Walsh+ blog March 31. I also appreciate Keith+ quoting scripture whether it be NIV as above or KJV as I have done. Jesus also addressed the nature of divorce in Matthew 19: 7-12, Mark 10: 4-12 and Luke 16: 18. Paul in his writings goes in to detail about the nature of marriage in I Corinthians 7 including sanctification of the unbelieving spouse through the believing spouse (vs 12-16) as well as when a spouse could remarry (vs 39-40).
I have added these passages to the above to show the importance of scripture in the context of other posts about the Episcopal Church being based upon three elements: scripture, tradition, and reason.
The analogy is that of a three legged stool and, as we know from mathematics, three points define a plane. If the floor is level and the three legs are equal in length, then a seat on top of the three legs will be parallel to the floor and provide a safe seat upon which one can rest. If, however, one leg does not change in length and the other two legs either lengthen or shorten together or change in different direction, then the seat is no longer parallel to the floor and will not provide a safe seat. If the two legs are sufficiently different in length from the leg that does not change in length, then one will fall off the seat and on to the floor.
The leg that has not changed in length is scripture and as I have stated in other posts, Christ quoted Deuteronomy 8: 3, 6: 16, and 6: 13 to protect Him when he was tempted by Satan (Matthew 4: 1-11).
Scripture and Reason are the two legs that are shifting in length and the stool is loosing its ability to serve as a plane, parallel to the floor.
Consider John 14: 6 which is Christ's declarative statement regarding salvation. If we use reason , we can think that one can be saved by other paths as this is a more palatable thought; it is, more politically correct as it is very inclusive. Perhaps we can even think that we can earn salvation ("Works Theology")although this is obviously contradicted in Ephesian 2: 8-10 and amplified in James 2: 14-26. If we think this long enough, this reason then becomes tradition.
The problem with this thinking is that it contradicts Christ's own statement and and at a more basic level it negates His atoning work on the Cross for all of man.
It is my opinion that Scripture always trumps reason and tradition. It is the solid rock upon which I stand.
Ben Carey MD
Psychiatrist
Dr. Carey,
DeleteI'm glad that you continue to be a part of this vital dialogue & I appreciate your voice as well as those of the other traditionalists who are posting & reading.
One of the themes we spoke about in person was the need for mutual humility by both traditionalist & reforming voices in the conversation. I mentioned to you at your home that it was difficult for reformers to hear traditionalists loudly proclaiming biblical certainties with citations from scripture that they themselves do not obey or show any interest in acknowledging.
In light of this and your clear interest in the teachings of both Jesus & St. Paul on the issue of marriage---would you be able to share from your own experience as someone who chose to marry twice, when Paul states over & over that the unmarried state is preferable? I wonder if you might be willing to share your own reasons for remarrying after the death of your first wife. Of course having met your lovely second wife, I can appreciate why you would be drawn to such a loving, Spirit-filled person. But since we are discussing the matter theologically, could you explain your theological disagreement with St. Paul, who would clearly have preferred that you remain a single widow?
I find it difficult to hear prescriptive interpretation from Christians who do not acknowledge their own points of deviation from biblical teaching. As you know, I value your intellect & your spirit as as conversation partner--both here on this blog & in the wider Body of Christ.
Warmly,
Ben Hines
Ben Carey MD
ReplyDeleteGalilee Church
Virginia Beach
My post has a typo. Paragraph 3 should state "Tradition and Reason are the two legs------"
Ben Carey MD
ReplyDeleteGalilee Church
Virginia Beach
Ben Hines
I will be glad to have this discussion with you in private, but as it involves more than just my thoughts and relates to my wife's privacy, I will wait for a more appropriate venue. You and I can then examine I Corinthians 7: 12-16 and I Corinthians 7: 39 and my decision to remarry.
Ben Carey
James Medley
ReplyDeleteEastern Shore Chapel
Dr. Carey (and our other conversation partners),
I have always loved the three-legged stool image of Anglicanism. However, I prefer to think in terms of thickness of legs as opposed to length. Scripture is the thickest leg of the stool, and should remain so, with reason and tradition varying in thickness in different time periods of the Church. Scripture is paramount but not always the same, traditional, understanding of Scripture. Our reason (learning more about the historical and cultural context in which Scripture was written and then applying that knowledge to our study of Scripture) can lead us to broader understandings and, sometimes, different understandings. Sometimes reason, new learnings, show us that a "reforming" understanding of Scripture is actually better and, sometimes, new research shows us that our "traditional" understanding was right all along.
Even with new research and better understanding of historical and cultural circumstances, the thing I always try to keep at the forefront of my mind is that when I talk about God (and that is what we are doing here) I could be wrong. I make my best guess at the mind of God, trying to live out my calling as a faithful Christian, and I must allow for others making their best guesses and living faithfully as best they can. I try to keep a spirit of humility, which is hard for me because I'm not naturally humble, and that spirit of humility can, I believe, keep us together even when we disagree about our understandings of Scripture. And the place of reason and tradition.
I think, as Anglicans, we can live with this tension of differing opinions and appreciate more the things we hold in common and, even with our differences, still remain together around the Lord's Table.
James Medley
Eastern Shore Chapel
Ben Carey MD
ReplyDeleteGalilee Church
Virginia Beach
James+ and others
I appreciate your points in the above post. I am certainly aware of Isaiah 55: 8-9 and none of us can know the will of God. So where does that leave us?
I am again referencing John 14: 6 in which Christ states "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me (KJV)". I see this simply as salvation occurs but one way consistent with Romans 10: 9-10. In my mind, Christ's declarative statement is crystal clear, and without ambiguity. In my mind, this is foundational to the Christian faith. I do not understand any Christian thinking that deviates from this concept.
Do you, or anyone else on this blog, see that scripture supports another way to salvation? If so, what does this mean for the atoning work of Christ at Calvary?
Ben Carey MD
Psychiatrist
James Medley
ReplyDeleteEastern Shore Chapel
Dr. Carey,
I believe with all my heart that Christ is our salvation and that Jesus took upon himself all the evil in the world upon the cross. God took upon God's self all the evil in the world upon the cross and broke the power of sin and death.
I said in my comment that I have to be willing to admit I am wrong when trying to know the mind of God. I cannot know God's mind and will totally, but there are things I believe, take on faith as it were. Our statements of faith in the Nicene and Apostles Creeds are things I believe, again with all my heart. What we are talking about here are things I would consider core to our faith. I'm not sure that the matter this blog is addressing, the blessing of same-gender unions, is a core matter of the faith. I personally am more concerned about the issue of open communion or the teachings of some within the church that disown Christ's physical resurrection. But that is another conversation to have at another time. Perhaps over our breakfast get together.
I won't speak for any other member of the task force or any of our sisters and brothers who have taken part in the blog conversation, but I believe that all of them are trying to be faithful witnesses of Christ, just as are you, and just as am I. Sometimes, our opinions will differ and I believe that's okay and we can all become stronger in our faith in spite of, and because of, our differences.
James Medley
Eastern Shore Chapel
Ben Carey MD
ReplyDeleteGalilee Church
Virginia Beach
James+ (and others)
Thanks for getting back to me so quickly on what for some may be a difficult topic and even more difficult than the same sex blessing issue. I agree completely with what you have stated, but my question to you and to others is somewhat nuanced. According to Christ's declarative statement, it appears to me that there is only one way for salvation and that is directly based upon what one believes in one's heart and confesses with one's mouth and that there is no other way for salvation (Romans 10: 9-10 and Acts 4: 12). Salvation is by Grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.
If there are others on this blog that see this differently from James+ and me, I would like to understand that thinking. As we go forward and continue to address same sex blessing for which there is a divergence of opinion, it is crucial that we agree on the foundations of our faith as Christians for which there should be agreement.
Ben Carey MD
Psychiatrist
Dr Ben,
ReplyDeleteYou say that you are dismayed at what is happening in the Episcopal Church, what specifically has you dismayed?
As for salvation I believe - "For GOD so loved the world that HE gave his only begotten Son that WHOSOEVER believes in Him shall have eternal life." John 3:16. Is there a part of WHOSOEVER that does not receive eternal life when they believe in Christ?
Susan Pederson
St. Stephen's - Norfolk
Dr Ben,
ReplyDeleteAnother point you make that I would like to comment on is your suggestion to read Randy Shilts' book, And the Band Played On." I have read this book and it is a good representation of knowledge at the time of what what happening with the AID epidemic. However, one fact that that author talks about quite frequently is the idea of Patient Zero who he believed was a Canadian flight attendent was responsible for bringing AIDS to the US. Doctors from the CDC have since proven that while he was responsible for a number of cases in the US he was not responsible for bringing AIDS to the US as it was here before he was.It is believed that HIV/AIDS started in Africa and may have been the result of someone coming into contact with APE meat/blood that was infected as HIV/AIDS was found in Apes first.
You allude to HIV and AIDS as a consequence for homosexual behavior but I must ask what about the hetrosexual people who suffer from HIV and AIDS? What about the folks who got HIV from blood transfusions?
There are consequences for almost all sexual behavior, Chlamydia, Syphillis, HPV,Gonorrhea and these are most often a result of heterosexual behavior.
Susan Pederson
St. Stephen's Norfolk
BenCarey MD
ReplyDeleteGalilee Church
Virginia Beach
Susan Pederson,
I am glad that you have read "And the Band Played On" You will also note the high risk sexual behavior in the book which occured in the bath houses and the resistance of the homosexual community initially to change this high risk sexual behavior. When bodily fluids are shared whether it is heterosexual activity or homosexual activity, there is the risk of contracting STD; additionally, if blood products are shared , there is a risk of transmitting the HIV virus. You will recall that Arthur Ashe, the great tennis player had a coronary artery bypass graft and received tainted blood products ultimatley leading to his developing AIDS and dying of this disease. I am not sure what your question is related to the transmission of HIV. Certainly there are consequences to high risk sexual behavior whether it heterosexaual or homosexual in nature.
In your earlier post, you asked me what was so dismaying to me about TEC. I could list a number of issues that are causing me dismay, but I will address only one which I think is the fundamental theological issue. Upon the ordiantion of the Presiding Bishop, she made the statement that there are multiple paths / ways to salvation. You will see in my multiple other posts that I have addresed John 14: 6 which I think is foundational to the Christian faith. I am certainly quite willing to address privately by E mail why I am dismayed by this statement, but I suspect that my prior posts should clearly address this issue.
Ben Carey MD
Psychiatrist