It's been a while...

My apologies. To leave this blog alone for so long was impolite to my readers. Perhaps it's a sign of where I've been lately - spiritually-speaking, that is.

I was browsing through this blog and my Daily Devotions blog (linked in sidebar), in search of pieces that I might add to my collection of writing that could be suited for inclusion in a portfolio, and I was surprised. Surprised at how deep I was able to get, surprised at the wisdom I was reading. More than once, I wondered at where that came from.

Of course, it came from God. And there could well be more he wants to give me, if I would just pay more attention to him.

I have need of spending time with him. Regular time. Just me & God, hanging out, conversing, existing.

Life has been eventful in the last months, but no amount of busyness can excuse my neglect of my spiritual life. God is my all, my everything.

It's time for me to start treating him properly.

I wonder, sometimes, what goes through people's heads...

On November 23, I posted the following to ISCABBS' Bible And Christianity forum:

Just for the heck of it, go read the letter from Bishop Venables (who I kind of like as a person) on the Essentials web site: http://www.anglicanessentials.ca/letter_venables_112307.htm

Also, read the statement from the Anglican Church's General Synod: http://www.anglican.ca/news/news.php?newsItem=2007-11-17_as.news

For an interesting take, check out the blurb on the Anglicans Online site: http://anglicansonline.org/news/index.html

And, of course, the whole thing wouldn't be complete without the article in the Anglican Journal: http://www.anglicanjournal.com/100/article/bishop-leaves-canadian-church-for-south-american-province/

*sigh*

I'll see where things go here in Calgary. This really sucks. I'm enjoying being on the music team for my church. I don't particularly want to leave, but I can't work at a liberal church and attend an Essentials church if it comes to that kind of decision... I really wish people would all just smarten up and think about we "minions" when they do this sort of thing.

Since I made this post, the Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada has clarified things in a pastoral letter, and that letter has made me feel much better about the situation. However, in the meantime...

Nov 29, 2007 13:55 from Westerner to Jubilee
Hey, how are you doing? I was at the Burlington conference - really great time, and very enlightening. The next day, our minister was called before the bishop since it was posted on a blog (A blog!!!!) that our minister was appointed prolocutor. He hadn't accepted the appointment. Much ado about nothing, but it was scary. We are continuing to have pressure on our minister and our church, and we can't help but feel singled out. What did you think of the materials at the anglican essentials website?
[Mail> msg #68236884 (7 remaining)] Read cmd ->

Nov 29, 2007 13:58 from Jubilee to Westerner
I'm doing pretty well. I think that the Anglican Essentials people aren't quite "on the ball" so far as everything goes, but then, I don't particularly agree with anybody at this point. I definitely think that the whole Southern Cone aspect is completely ridiculous and a very poor choice of action.
[Mail> msg #68236894 (6 remaining)] Read cmd ->

Nov 30, 2007 14:59 from Westerner to Jubilee
Really? What do you recommend as an alternative?
[Mail> msg #68238769 (5 remaining)] Read cmd ->

Nov 30, 2007 15:09 from Jubilee to Westerner
Um, not breaking Communion with one's own church, for starters. It is illegal within the Anglican Church for anyone to perform priestly activities without the express permission of the bishop of that location. To resign from the ACC and then join a different country's church and expect to be permitted to continue to act as Anglican clergy is ridiculous and I seriously doubt that the rest of the Anglican Communion will stand for it.

There has been far too much "straying from the path" within the Anglican Church of Canada at this point. And I'm not siding with the liberals or the conservatives here. Extremists (on both sides) are driving the church to ruin. I seriously doubt that anyone actually knows what they're fighting about anymore. And that is incredibly distressing.

I don't have an alternative, but outright disobeying the law of the church is definitely not a good choice.
[Mail> msg #68238786 (4 remaining)] Read cmd ->

Nov 30, 2007 15:21 from Westerner to Jubilee
Ok, outright disobeying the law of the church. That is what the Anglican Church of Canada is doing with allowing same-sex blessings, and it runs deeper than that. Have you seen Kendall Harmon's site, TitusOneNine? He has a lot of good things to write. His video is on the front page of the Anglican Essentials site, and it explains fairly well what the fundamental problem with the ACC and TEC is. Both of these churches are contravening the laws and canons of the worldwide Anglican church, and more importantly, they are perverting the word of God. I am not sure if you see it this way. It is not Anglican Essentials that are breaking communion with the worldwide Anglican church, it is the ACC that is doing so. Anglican Essentials and the offer fromt he SOuthern Cone allows biblically faithful Anglicans to stay within their denomination without breaking communion with the world body.
[Mail> msg #68238795 (3 remaining)] Read cmd ->

Nov 30, 2007 15:51 from Jubilee to Westerner
We disagree on this.

Aside from the fact that I disagree about whether or not it is lawful to allow same-sex blessings within the church (I don't believe it is core doctrine, and I don't believe it *should* be core doctrine, which means that it *cannot* be held as canon law of the church), it would be better to merely split from the current Anglican Church of Canada and become another Anglicized denomination. That or convince the liberals to leave.

It has simply become, as I've put it elsewhere, a case of "You're making me mad, so I'm taking my toys and going home."

I'm sick of the fighting. People talk about the homosexuality thing not being the real issue, but it is. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be the sticking point. And I fail to see how allowing same-sex blessings causes anyone to cease being Christian. Which (Christianity) should be our primary concern.
[Mail> msg #68238814 (2 remaining)] Read cmd ->

Dec 1, 2007 02:21 from Westerner to Jubilee
I am truly saddened that you feel that allowing same-sex blessings is not in conflict with being Christian. Under what conditions do you consider a person to be a Christian, and what is defining about a Christian, apart from a member of any other faith?
May I ask you if you think adultery is OK? Child molesting? Just where do you draw the line, or do you draw the line?
[Mail> msg #68239381 (1 remaining)] Read cmd ->

Dec 3, 2007 14:21 from Jubilee to Westerner
Adultery is wrong. Child molestation is wrong. These are not in any way similar to homosexual relationships, which are exactly the same as heterosexual relationships except for the fact that both people are the same physical gender.

Christians are followers of Christ, plain and simple. A Christian believes that Christ is God's Son, God incarnate, that he came to show us the Kingdom and help us to understand how desperately we need him in our lives. A Christian believes that Christ died on the cross and rose again, that death may have no hold on us any more. All that is stated in the apostle's and Nicene creed is what is necessary to believe in order to have salvation. Pardon me if I see nothing in either creed regarding homosexuality.

Above and beyond these very basic tenets of our faith, a Christian - one who follows Christ - is called upon to obey the two great commandments: love the Lord your God with all you are and love your neighbour as you love yourself.

It is so easy to be self-righteous about things we have not had to deal with, either personally or by virtue of being close with those who deal with them on a daily basis.
[Mail> msg #68241870 (0 remaining)] Read cmd ->

Dec 5, 2007 14:29 from Westerner to Jubilee
Except for the first and last paragraph, I agree with you. Your first paragraph is wrong, homosexuality is called an abomination in scripture and no scripture can be brought forth endorsing it. However, numerous scripture can be brought forth endorsing fidelity in marriage and abstinence in singleness.

You last paragraph sounds accusatory - are you calling me self-righteous? That is the implication in what you have written. How would you know of the people I know personally or have worked with? That is rather presumptuous, don't you think?

There are many things that are a part of being a Christian, and all are sinners, all have sinned and those who do not repent and turn from their sin will be condemned. That is what scripture says, and if you really want I can quote chapter and verse on this teaching.

We are not to engage in homosexual relationships. Just as we are not to engage in adulterous relationships, incestuous relationships, etc. To do so is sinful. To continue to do so is sinful. If a man commits adultery, repents and commits adultery again, has he truly repented? If a person loves God, can he or she continue to sin, over and over, and say that they have repented and turned from their ways?

I suppose a question to you would be, do you consider homosexual relations to be sinful? If you do, then we may have something to discuss. If you do not, then I cannot say anything that will convince you otherwise.
[Mail> msg #68244741 (0 remaining)] Read cmd ->

Dec 5, 2007 15:30 from Jubilee to Westerner
I have seen nobody bring forth an argument that I can agree with wholeheartedly on the sinfulness of committed homosexual relationships. It is *not* clear to me, or to many other people in the Christian world, that homosexuality is a sin. Sexual orientation is not something that is ever tackled by the Bible, and I challenge you to show me where it is.

When it comes right down to it, I reiterate: homosexual relationships are identical to heterosexual relationships, except for the physical gender of those involved. If you can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that homosexual relationships are, in fact, wildly different from heterosexual relationships, fine. But the many people I know who are homosexual are in long-term relationships (lasting over two years in duration - longer than many heterosexual marriages).

My last paragraph is not necessarily accusatory. I don't claim to know anything about you, save what church you attend and that you are married. But I do see the general atmosphere (on both sides of the debate) as falling into the category of "I'm better than you because..." - and that is sickening, to say the least.

The Bible says *nothing* about homosexual *relationships* - not as we see them today. The Bible talks about the kind of "homosexuality" that was rampant at the time, consisting primarily of adult males engaging in sexual activities with younger males. Some of this was pedophilia, some of it was not. Very rarely (if ever) was it an equal "relationship".

I am specifically choosing *not* to "decide" whether or not homosexuality is a sin. That's none of my business. It's God's. I certainly did agree with you on this point at one time, but over the years I've had a lot of opinions challenged - and that's all it was, an opinion. Sometimes my opinions change, sometimes they don't. My opinion on homosexuality hasn't changed so much as become more open. I'm open to the possibility that it may not be a sin to be in a committed homosexual relationship. This in no way equates to the endorsement of such a thing, any more than it condemns it.
[Mail> msg #68244852 (0 remaining)] Read cmd ->

Dec 5, 2007 20:39 from Westerner to Jubilee
If you wish to believe your way and think your way is totally right, then there is nothing I can do. If you are looking for information, I can make a suggestion or two.
If you go to BibleGateway.com and do a search on 'homosexuality', you will find:
1. Leviticus 18:22
"Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin.
Leviticus 18:21-23 (in Context) Leviticus 18 (Whole Chapter)
2. Leviticus 20:13
"If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense.
Leviticus 20:12-14 (in Context) Leviticus 20 (Whole Chapter)
3. 1 Corinthians 6:9
Don't you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality,
1 Corinthians 6:8-10 (in Context) 1 Corinthians 6 (Whole Chapter)
4. 1 Timothy 1:10
The law is for people who are sexually immoral, or who practice homosexuality, or are slave traders, liars, promise breakers, or who do anything else that contradicts the wholesome teaching
1 Timothy 1:9-11 (in Context) 1 Timothy 1 (Whole Chapter)

Depending on the translation you will get some of these, or none at all. In all references to marriage, none mention two men together in a marriage and all show marriage being between a man and a woman. Again, you can do a search.
I am not telling you what to think - you are intelligent enough to figure things out on your own.
What is more the the heart of the matter for me is that this is just one small tip of the iceberg. I don't know if you have seen the Kendall Harmon video I referred to in my post in Bible and Christianity. It may help explain things better than I can.
I hope you don't think that I am judging you - it is not my place to do so, and I am not. I am here to witness for Christ and His teaching, upholding His word as expressed in the Holy Bible.
Peace in Christ, and God bless.
[Mail> msg #68245220 (0 remaining)] Read cmd ->

Dec 5, 2007 21:45 from Jubilee to Westerner
A couple of points on this:

The New Covenant dismisses the insanity of attempting to keep all of the miniscule laws of Leviticus. You cannot pick and choose. If you wear mixed fabrics, then you are not obeying the law, and to hold fast to the passages about "homosexuality" is disingenuous, at best.

Depending on context and the bias of the translator, you will end up with various wordings of all of those Bible passages. The very fact that not all translations include "homosexuality" should be a clue that perhaps it's not as cut-and-dried as people are attempting to make it out to be.

I don't think you're judging me. I do think that you aren't understanding where I sit on this issue, and I don't know if that's because you don't want to or because you can't. I've stated my position more than once, both here and in Bible, and the fact of the matter is that I have *chosen* to refuse to take sides. Throwing a few verses at me (when they've been used before; your points and arguments aren't exactly new to me) is not going to sway me one way or the other. I have settled on a position, and while I suppose some would say that my position is not a position at all, it is absolutely something that I feel very strongly about.

Perhaps I am simply too "post-modernist" for those who *have* made a decision one way or the other. I see my position as being a clear-cut decision. And I made it using the information I'd been given and had discovered myself. Not everyone is going to come to the same conclusion, and for me, that is perfectly fine. Obviously it's not okay for everyone in the world. That saddens me, but I can't do anything about it.
[Mail> msg #68245367 (0 remaining)] Read cmd ->

Dec 6, 2007 11:41 from Westerner to Jubilee
I could go on and on, but there is no point. I stand by scripture. You have not responded to my challenge, and likely it is because you cannot and will not. You can name-call all you like, it does not matter to me. I will continue to adhere to Biblical faithfulness and the authority of scripture in these matters. You are going your way. I am going mine.
[Mail> msg #68245939 (0 remaining)] Read cmd ->

Dec 6, 2007 14:02 from Jubilee to Westerner
What was your challenge? I think I missed it somewhere.

I have not called you names.

Obviously this does matter to you, as you instigated this conversation, not me. I again note that you seem not to understand my position on this matter, and while I do not expect it, it does sadden me somewhat.

Peace & Blessings to you.
[Mail> msg #68245939 (0 remaining)] Read cmd ->

Dec 7, 2007 16:24 from Westerner to Jubilee
You obviously havenot read my messages to you, which saddens me. It shows a deep lack of respect for anyonr\e who holds a differing view than yours. I know your position clearly and thoroughly. You however, cannot support your position nor can you understand mine. Again, more sadness. But as it does not matter to you, and you are clearly intransigent in this, then I do not care to discuss it with you further. If I thought that some clarity would come through to you, and from you, I would continue. But you refuse to accept scripture, you refuse to be considerate in your writings, and I refuse to carry on this way with someone who has a different religion than I do. Please, do not trouble yourself to write again. I see no point in discussing it further with you, as you have set in stone your position, and refuse to listen to anyone else.
May God have mercy.
[Mail> msg #68247400 (1 remaining)] Read cmd ->

Dec 8, 2007 10:37 from Jubilee to Westerner
I have, indeed, read your messages to me. I did not see a "challenge". If you would re-state it, perhaps that would help.

I understand your position, and at no time have I said that you are wrong in your belief that homosexual relationships are sinful by nature; I have merely stated that I do not agree. Since I also do not agree that scripture is absolutely, 100% clear on this issue, that should not be a surprise.

At no time have I tried to make you change your beliefs on this issue. I have merely attempted to explain my position. However, I stand by my statement that you do not understand my position. My reason for this is your continued attempts to change my mind. I do not believe that you came into this conversation (which you, in fact, started) in order to learn anything. Rather, I believe that you began this conversation with a specific agenda - that agenda being my return to the truth as you see it.

Remember, I once shared your views. I do not think that I will ever go all the way to the "other side", but I do refuse to join in the name-calling and other non-Christian actions that are being taken by both "sides" in this debate. The reason being that I don't think either "side" is behaving in a truly Christian manner towards the other, and I don't think either "side" is completely correct, either. At the same time, I do not claim to know the answers or the truth in this matter.

I continue to trust in my God - Father, Son, and Spirit - and believe that he will lead me to Truth as I require its knowledge.

Peace & Blessings to you in all you do. May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you always. Amen.
[Mail> msg #68247876 (0 remaining)] Read cmd ->

The conversation may or may not be finished at this point; we shall see. I post this here to illustrate what can happen in a "debate" of this nature.

The post's title is precisely my question here. What is going on in this man's head? Does he truly not see what I am saying, or does he understand and not care, or what? To my mind, a reasonable person would not respond to "I disagree, and here's why" with accusations of disrespect and name-calling. A reasonable person would respond with "That's interesting. Have you thought of..." - thus continuing a respectful debate.

Instead, he began a conversation with me and, it seems, became frustrated when I did not respond to his arguments the way he wanted me to. And so he is going to take his toys and go home. He doesn't want to play with me anymore.

I don't mind a good debate - I actually kind of enjoy them. I just wish people would keep emotional reactions out of things and properly *debate*, is all.