Replies

Many of us have already left the Episcopal Church. I was raised in the Episcopal Church and I will always love it, in a manner of speaking; my forebears worshipped in the Episcopal Church or C of E since these institutions came into being. But the beautiful hymns and splendid architecture cannot make up for the discomfort of having some gay fellow get up in front of the congregation and give sermons on the enlightening topic, "Write Us A Big Check So We Can Pursue Our Left-Wing Political Agenda As Jesus Would No Doubt Want If He Existed."

At historic Christ Church in Alexandria, Virginia--the place where my ancestors are buried, where George Washington had a pew, where Robert E. Lee was baptized!--I was explicitly told that as a conservative I would not be welcome there. I was so angry I considered writing to the suffragan bishop. Then I remembered that the suffragan bishop was a pinko sow who devoted all her energies to suppressing conservative dissent and making everyone toe the party line.

Not long ago my daughter's private Episcopal school announced that they were 'struggling' with the issue of homosexual dorm parents. They solicited our input, although I could see they'd aready decided. My response:

The Right Rev. *****
***** School

Dear Rev. ******: 19 November 2001

Although you have asked us to direct to a committee our comments about the housing of homosexual couples at the school, I make mine directly to you, as pastor of this flock, and the leader of the school. I have no objection, however, should you wish to circulate this among the committee.

The impression I receive from your letter is that the decision is already made. It is hard to view the soliciting of our comments as anything more than a sop to our feelings. Nonetheless, though my thoughts may not make a difference, I offer them.

Consensus is the instrument of Satan, not of Christ. Sin requires consensus; the first recorded seeking of consensus in the Bible is when Eve sought to involve Adam in her sin. I can recall no example of Christ seeking consensus among his followers; He Himself said that His message was divisive. He certainly made it clear that there was no compromise to be made. In this matter the school appears prepared to bow to the prevailing winds, making its moral judgments on a worldly rather than spiritual basis.

Since it has already been decided to accept the sin, there can be no point in agonizing over where and how you will allow it to be practiced. It is fatuous to agonize over what defines a "committed" relationship. You have already swallowed the camel, so why strain at gnats?

Fairness and equity are often invoked in discussing this issue. But how is it fair to treat sin with the same respect we accord to virtue? And how can it be honest pedagogy to fail to teach discernment?

While Jesus at no time tolerated the abuse of sinners, He made no bones about their sinfulness. He made His home among them because, as He put it, a physician's place is among the sick. When we pretend that wrong is right, we love the sin and not the sinner. That is no example to set for our children.When we treat sin as sin, we are being honest. When we treat sinners as sinners, we are following the Golden Rule, since we are all sinners.

19 November 2001 page 2

Academic excellence is not the only reason we chose St. Paul's School; we also sought an island in the moral swamp which our culture has become. We do not seek a Pollyanna place where unpleasant realities are denied and difficult questions are avoided. But we did hope for a place where respect would be accorded to the character it requires to stand up and call a thing by its name. If we do not have the truth, then we have nothing at all, and the simple truth is that homosexual activity, though not homosexuals themselves, is condemned by the Bible. This particular version of sexual sin is no more grievous than the many varieties of heterosexual sin, but it is folly to pretend that someone is not a sinner just because he is no more sinful than we. We do not celebrate or honor our sins, and there is no reason for us to celebrate anyone else's. The take-home lesson from the policy which I fear you are going to adopt is that moral equivocation is permissible. Such equivocation has a tendency to metastasize into other areas of life.

I hope the tone of this letter has not caused offense, though it probably will. It was C. S. Lewis, I believe, who pointed out that truth and virtue are usually plain and rude. It is sin which requires polish and poise; virtue often wears homespun, but corruption must wear makeup and perfume.

Sincerely,

Glock22