Rev’d Dr. Leander Harding

The Christian understanding of evil has always been more radical and fantastic than that of any theodicist; for it denies from the outset that suffering, death and evil have any ultimate meaning at all. Perhaps no doctrine is more insufferably fabulous to non-Christians than the claim that we exist in the long melancholy aftermath of a primordial catastrophe, that this is a broken and wounded world, that cosmic time is the shadow of true time, and that the universe languishes in bondage to “powers” and “principalities”–spiritual and terrestrial–alien to God. In the Gospel of John, especially, the incarnate God enters a world at once his own and yet hostile to him–”He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not”–and his appearance within “this cosmos” is both an act of judgment and a rescue of the beauties of creation from the torments of fallen nature.

David B Hart, Tremors of Doubt
Thanks to Titsusonenine.

Titusonenine has a good story about research Bill Sachs of ECF has done on reaction to GC 2003.

I have suggested repeatedly in various settings that the Episcopal Church Foundation, because it is an independent foundation with a research arm, conduct a carefully composed and extensive poll aimed at finding out what the sentiment in the pews really is on the issue. The point is not to vote on the truth but to give leaders on all sides of the question an accurate reading on where the people actually are. My ancedotal experience is that in my parish both strong proponents and strong opponents consistently overestimate the strength of their party in the parish, underestimate the size of what is inadequately described as the undecided party and routinely misidentify where other people in the parish are on the topic. One of the most hilarious experiences I have had is a forum where two different parishioners were irate with me, one for being an opponent of GC 2003 and one for not being a strong enough opponent of GC2003. They each interspersed their remarks with expressions of total agreement with each other and each to this day operates with the illusion that the other is on her “side.” It would sober up everyone and positively affect the debate to have an accurate take on where the people in the pews really are.

Leave a comment if you think this is a good idea.

Thanks to Pontificator for the this address for a site by a teacher of theology with many good resources.
here

As modern men and women—to the degree that we are modern—we believe in nothing. This is not to say, I hasten to add, that we do not believe in anything; I mean, rather, that we hold an unshakable, if often unconscious, faith in the nothing, or in nothingness as such. It is this in which we place our trust, upon which we venture our souls, and onto which we project the values by which we measure the meaningfulness of our lives. Or, to phrase the matter more simply and starkly, our religion is one of very comfortable nihilism.

David B. Hart, Christ and Nothing

Thanks to titusonenine for reminding me about this profound and poignant article.

This is a discussion starter for a vestry meeting. It is not meant to be exhaustive. It is just meant to get the discussion going. I will add to the list from the comments section.

Possible Strategies For Evangelism And Church Growth
Prepared For St. John’s Vestry, December 2004.

(more…)

Seal Island is about twelve miles off the southwest coast of Nova Scotia. It has a lighthouse, a bird sanctuary and two hundred fifty sheep. I worked for the man who owned the sheep and we would go out to the island to round up the sheep, shear them and take off the lambs. He liked me to go with him because I could shear sheep reasonably well and because I had a Border Collie Sheep Dog that could swim.

(more…)

by Wolfhart Pannenberg
from Good News Magazine
Thanks To Pastor Eric Swenson

Can love ever be sinful? The entire tradition of Christian doctrine teaches that there is such a thing as inverted, perverted love. Human beings are created for love, as creatures of the God who is Love. And yet that divine appointment is corrupted whenever people turn away from God or love other things more than God.

(more…)

Is change really possible? Absolutely! We testify from our own personal experience that we have experienced profound change in our sexual identity, behavior, interests and desires — change that has brought us great peace and satisfaction. (See About Us: Our Stories)

In sharing our experience, we are not necessarily suggesting that everyone can change. Nor are we saying that everyone should try to change. We are only sharing our own experience, about what was right for us and what worked for us. We have no desire to try to convince people who are happy living a gay life that they should be dissatisfied. If “gay” works for them, great. We are not suggesting that those who embrace and accept a gay identity and choose to live as homosexuals are sick, or wrong, or somehow “less than” others. They are as deserving of respect as we are.

Homosexuality just wasn’t right for us. It conflicted with our deeply held beliefs, our life goals, and our intrinsic sense of our true, authentic selves.

And so we pursued change — and ultimately found that by facing and addressing deep emotional wounds, fears and other root problems, our homosexual desires started to diminish and then to disappear, while heterosexual feelings began to emerge and increase. True, we found the journey was often difficult and frightening, but the destination has brought us immeasurable peace and joy. In fact, if there is one consistency in the scores of published testimonials by those who have succeeded at change, it is their universal claim that their lives are better now.

PeopleCanChange.com, Is Change Really Possible?

1) Our scenario starts with birth. The boy (for example) who one day may go on to struggle with homosexuality is born with certain features that are somewhat more common among homosexuals than in the population at large. Some of these traits might be inherited (genetic), while others might have been caused by the “intrauterine environment” (hormones). What this means is that a youngster without these traits will be somewhat less likely to become homosexual later than someone with them.

What are these traits? If we could identify them precisely, many of them would turn out to be gifts rather than “problems,” for example a “sensitive” disposition, a strong creative drive, a keen aesthetic sense. Some of these, such as greater sensitivity, could be related to - or even the same as - physiological traits that also cause trouble, such as a greater-than-average anxiety response to any given stimulus.

No one knows with certainty just what these heritable characteristics are; at present we only have hints. Were we free to study homosexuality properly (uninfluenced by political agendas) we would certainly soon clarify these factors - just as we are doing in less contentious areas. In any case, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the behavior “homosexuality” is itself directly inherited.

Dr. Jeffery Satinover, How Might Homosexuality Develop?

“I want to start a revolution in the Anglican Communion of conservatives, liberals and moderates who love Jesus, are willing to surrender to God and be transformed, and who are willing to pay the awful price of being reconcilers. It’s time to stand up and be counted. The Windsor Report is the shofar calling us to report for duty.”From an editorial in the current issue of the Living Church. Not currently up on their website.

The Rev. Brian Cox is an Episcopal Priest who is a trained mediator and has been active in a grass roots movement called The New Commandment Taskforce aiming to bring reconciliation to the Episcopal Church.