Web Letters | The Nation

Web Letter

Ms. Joan Oliver has already and with excellent proficiency outlined some of the most significant shortcomings in Mr Haxby's article.

Let me just add that as long as the Episcopal Church and any others who claim to be serving Christ continue in this abomination, they stand outside of God's grace and light.

Furthermore, as Paul states in Romans chapter 1, all who condone this sinful behavior are equally condemned. As shepards of the flock they also stand guilty of attempting to lead the flock astray into deviant teachings. Peter addresses this destructiveness in his second letter (2 Peter chapter 2).

As Peter declares in verse 19 of the passage, "while they promise them liberty, they themselves are slaves of corruption."

Web Letter

Thank you, Joan Oliver, for calling out the author of this article for his use of the term "homophobic," which is being used far too carelessly to categorize anyone with any concerns about same sex relationships these days. I get called by this term quite often on various blogs, for trying to discuss one specific issue relating to same sex marriage--the issue of role modeling same sex relationships in the intimacy of a family setting where children are being raised. I do not think that requesting a sober and honest discussion of this issue merits my being called homophobic. But I have a long history with gay people and have noticed that name-calling (among themselves as well) is a very common part of their discourse, so maybe I am making too much of it?

The author of this article obviously assumes that his position is right. Perhaps. Time will tell. I would like to say, however, that some of us with serious reservations about the gay agenda (yes, it is an agenda) are not religious, not socially conservative, not even sexually conservative. I am none of the above, and my concerns have to do with the energetic connections forged by relationships. Please be aware that not everyone who is summarily labeled "homophobic" will fit into the "homophobic" template inside the labeler's mind.

Web Letter

Drew Haxby shows his inexperience in several ways in this article. First, he doesn't seem to know the difference between the Episcopal Church (not Episcopalian church) and an Episcopalian (a person who attends the Episcopal Church). It may seem insignificant, but his use of the incorrect terms reflects either inexperience or ignorance or both. Second, he refers to Bishop Akinola as "homophobic"--his term. Well, for what it's worth, a careful study of that term shows its meaning as being "an unreasonable fear or hatred of homosexuals." Bishop Akinola is not afraid of homosexuals, nor does he hate them. Had Haxby checked with the bishop, he would have found a man who loves people and wants them to find freedom and righteousness in Jesus Christ; that does not happen when one practices sin, which is what Akinola refers to when he calls homosexual behavior wrong and thus sinful.

In all the conversations about the discord between the Episcopal Church and the rest of the Anglican Communion--and those churches in the United States and Canada who have left the Episcopal Church--the press (both mainstream and the Internet) have demonstrated laxity in not carefully defining the basic issue: Orthodox Episcopalians (those leaving the Episcopal Church) hold to the authority of Scripture and say that homosexuality is sinful behavior. At no time do we say homosexuals are less than human or worthy of fear or loathing. It is behavior that is the problem, not the person.