Two interesting news items recently on Evangelicals and homosexuality that call for a bit of comment. First, this piece in the Independent, brought to my attention by Jim Simons. The headline is ‘Evangelicals who say being gay is OK’, and the body of the article goes into some detail about two self-described evangelical clergy who have concluded that ‘there is nothing in the Bible which condemns consensual, loving, committed gay relationships’.
Second, reports like this one on the Church of England’s recent decision that being in what is called a ‘civil relationship’ does not prevent a priest becoming a bishop. The report quotes Rod Thomas, spokesman for the evangelical group ‘Reform’, as saying “It’s a very worrying development… Although the Church says they would be required to declare that they are celibate as part of their appointment, the fact is that this is unenforceable,” and Michael Lawson, chairman of the Church of England Evangelical Council, as saying “At the very least [it] will spread confusion and at worst will be taken as an effort to conform to the spirit of the age.”
I don’t very often disagree with Reform, but in this case I think that the Church of England has it right, and that both groups have it wrong. Those mentioned by the Independent are wrong because the Bible condemns sexual activity between two people of the same sex absolutely. The fact that those two people love each other, are committed to each other, and consent to it is irrelevant. The fact that the Bible doesn’t add those words to its condemnation is to argue from silence in a way that is usually rejected as illogical. Rod and Michael are wrong because while they acknowledge that celibacy makes a difference, they don’t seem to grasp that it is the crucial difference, as far as the Bible is concerned. The fact that it’s unenforceable is neither here nor there–so are the standards on chastity within marriage, in most cases. And the fact that it will confuse people and be taken the wrong way is no argument either, especially by clergy, whose job it is to teach and who are expected by Scripture to be ‘apt’ enough to cope with such misunderstandings.
The C of E has got this one right. The Christian response to the temptation to have sex with people of one’s own sex is to say ‘no’, to be celibate. Those committed to that response need support and encouragement.
Still an Evangelical in the Episcopal Church 
January 5, 2013 at 7:00 pm
Coincidentally, Tim Fountain posted on this topic today. The comment thread following his piece is interesting.
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/29964
February 4, 2013 at 5:40 am
Thank you for this reference. One of the remarks in the article was that some in the reformation and Evangelican movement held up and hold up marriage as the only way of life for Christians. I also believe this is a mistake. Many are called to a celibate life, either individually or in community. Vocations for women and men in celibate communities “the consecrated life” used to be common in the Anglican life in England and there were many orders. However, when I was looking through the ones in the US now, they all seem to include “gays” and I have noticed some orders in England are leaving the Anglican Church and are joining the Catholic Church. It is such a shame that the “gay agenda” and I would add the feminist agenda are used to bullyso many people in the church–really in a fascistic manner–so they cannot serve God in their vocations.
January 5, 2013 at 7:44 pm
I think the Church should re-examine Holy Scripture & the Prayer Book on the subject of marriage. It is, after all, considered a sacrament by many Anglicans. A lack of Biblical teaching on Christian marriage and failure to speak out forcefully on sin has led the Church to this present crisis & apostasy. Supposed “orientation” toward unnatural and sinful physical relations doesn’t justify behaviour that God unambiguously condemns. See HERE: http://www.eskimo.com/~lhowell/bcp1662/occasion/marriage.html
January 5, 2013 at 9:36 pm
We had a brief discussion of the reasons for marriage that Runnymeadeuk quotes above on another blog. No one else mentioned it, but it seemed to me that the story of Adam and Eve puts concern #3 squarely in the first position (God made Eve to be a “help meet for him”). Would be interesting to trace how the reasons got reversed. — The discussion in the piece Fr. Robison quotes also makes me wonder about the list. Many couples as they age are in the position of not having physical intimacy for one reason or another,but it’s not the end of the world for them–or for people who are celibate for one reason or another. I think the author rightly points out that “Eros” is being made a good bit more of in our society today that is healthy or kind. –And I don’t think Eros is the number one concern for many same-sex couples who want marriage. They can get Eros without marriage, and without staying faithful to one partner. –I’m glad Evangelicals are getting into the issues involved.
February 4, 2013 at 5:44 am
Why is it that the “same sex couples” have to slink into the conversation everywhere? There can be no “same sex couples” period in the Church. People who are homosexual have to deal with the origins and brokeness of their sexual proclivities and Christ welcomes them and all of us. We are all broken and twised in some ways. But marriage is only for a man and a woman. All other arrangements for living, according to the Bible are celibate.
January 6, 2013 at 3:54 pm
I think, the “firstly” (bad grammar notwithstanding) listed as being procreation in the 1662 Prayer Book has to do with the “be fruitful and multiply” command, which technically precedes the “help meet for him” (Genesis 1 and 2 respectively, but I don’t necessarily think an order of precedence is being established, as such in the Prayer Book). The whole safety valve view (the “better to marry than to burn” idea) mentioned between the “firstly” and the “thirdly”, is biblical, however crass it may seem (but I appreciated a great deal as teenager, when I was dealing with biological hormonal overdrive) but I think is secondary even to the helper idea, despite it’s position of mention in the wedding liturgy. Fruitfulness and mutual support are the key points, with the added benefit as a hedge against sinful lusts.
However these are asides in the liturgy considering that as marriage is described beforehand as a God-ordained institution, blessed by Christ, and serving as a symbolic representation of Christ’s love and union with the Church. Paul’s nod of approval is added, but is probably not germane except that he’s the one that promoted celibacy as an ideal–so for him to give it a thumbs up helps counter those who see a celibate single life as the only ideal Christian state.
It’s that aspect, marriage and sexuality’s “iconic” representation of expressing the kind of spiritual connection God desires to have with us, that makes any attempts to re-define marriage problematic–even more, in my opinion, than the prohibitions against certain types of sexual behavior. There is simply something about the idea of two “others,” two “differents” coming together to form “one flesh” (analogous to the “one Body” in Christ) that gets muddied by defining marriage as any two humans, regardless of sex. And if it is an institution established by God, we simply do not have the right to reinterpret it without a direct biblical command to do so.
It’s an easier biblical case to make to argue that same-sex unions might be a a different way of relating that God could potentially bless so long as celibacy is upheld (the C of E’s position), than to try to equate same-sex marriage with heterosexual marriage. Qualifying some or all of the direct prohibitions against homosexuality as culturally bound does not deal with the primary reality that marriage is not a man-made institution but is established by God according to the biblical record, and that sexual activity is only condoned expressly within the covenant of marriage, which is presumed to be heterosexual in the foundational accounts of Creation.
January 7, 2013 at 8:49 am
Is that the C of E’s position? I didn’t see whatever statement they put out, so the only thing I know is that they don’t consider the existence of a celibate ‘civil union’ a bar to ordination, and that’s a position I can agree with. As far as I know the only other things a civil union could involve would be the kind of legal relationship that has never been controversial between any two people—someone automatically inheriting your property etc. Something more like an adoption than a marriage.
January 7, 2013 at 9:39 am
This is simply not according to the truth, no matter how much one might want to be accommodating and inclusive. The church is the body of Christ. It is not a club or a public facility. People in homosexual civil unions are still practicing homosexual sex, otherwise there would be no such need for such a formal designation. If they are simply friends of the same sex living together without same-sex attraction, sex does not come into it.
Members of the Body of Christ partake in the New Man and have crucified the Old Man with its sexual lusts and perversions. The marriage bed is undefiled according to scripture because marriage between a man and a woman here on earth was ordained by God. Any other sexual practice is considered fornication (Eph. 5:3) or uncleanness and is not even to be named among believers. We are not to be living the life of the world!
January 7, 2013 at 9:54 am
I agree with you; my assumption was that ‘celibate’ meant not practicing homosexual sex.
January 7, 2013 at 10:29 am
I am very pleased to have found this web site. I didn’t think there were any people who were deliberately staying in the Episcopal Church who were still firm believers simply because they thought God was calling them to stay. One of your posts says our time is “norma”, and that the church has always been broken. But really has it really been this outrageously, for want of a better word, “pagan”?l
February 4, 2013 at 5:54 am
Again, I believe that people long for community, but “same sex couples” would be a deadly combination if the “couple” were homosexual. Paul tells nearly every NT church to flee fornication and even the appearance of it. Every sexual engagement that is not marriage is fornication according to the Bible. That is a high standard, but so be it! God doesn’t “cater to” the flesh. God in Jesus died on the cross so that we would be dead to the fleshly desires and he arose from the dead that we would have the power over the lusts of the flesh. What? Are we trying to live this life in the flesh? Woe to anyone who tries to go up against the lusts of the flesh in the arm of the flesh! But to change change the clear realities of our life in Christ in order to make it more palatable to the flesh is denying the whole point of Christ’s sacrifice.
January 7, 2013 at 10:49 am
Interesting question. I think the church has always found itself in the position of responding to changes initiated elsewhere. Some of the changes have turned out to be accepted as not contrary to the teachings of the church; others have not. For instance, the church was originally opposed to Galileo, for instance, believing that the views his scientific studies pointed to were contrary to scripture. Recently the RC church has apologized for its stance. Another challenge was the publication by Darwin (after much hesitation because he knew of the difficulties it would present) of his _Origin of Species_. I remember a Masterpiece Theatre treatment of the subject and the suicide of the poor priest who had staked his reputation on defeating a proponent of Darwin’s theories in a debate, but lost. The current homosexuality debate began, at least in part, in 1973 when the American Association of Psychiatrists (I may have the name slightly wrong) voted to de-list homosexual inclinations and practice as a psychiatric disease. Other medical associations, such as pediatricians’, followed suit. Those associations are secular. Should they be equated with “pagan”? Perhaps that is not what you are asking. In any event, at least part of the challenge to the church for its stance on homosexuality, which the church bases on OT and NT prohibitions, comes from the “scientific community.”
January 7, 2013 at 11:22 am
I am part of that “psychiatric community”. These changes were made with no real “scientific” evidence. In fact, the worst part of all these changes in the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) is that now there is no research into what is normative or healthy sexuality. The social ills we see in the West in general have been allowed to arise because Christians in the Church cared more about approval by the world and stopped arguing for the the truth of the Biblical perspective in both science & psychology. We have perfectly rational and powerful arguments to make against abortion, homosexuality and so forth to bolster the Scriptural record, but Christians would rather “be popular” and loved by the world than stand up, like David, and fight the Goliath of the popular press and the so-called “scientific community”. What are we so worried about? Humiliation? Wasn’t Christ humiliated? Loss of a job? Wasn’t Jesus crucified? I myself have lost at least one job because I mentioned I was a Christian. Yet God has always taken very good care of me!
January 7, 2013 at 11:41 am
Sorry I got a little worked up! It’s calming to know that Jesus has already saved the Church and will be coming back to take us to Himself. I just have to be obedient to Him to be where He wants me to be so He can use me as He sees fit. Sometimes I get frustrated and angry at the destruction of our once beautiful Episcopal Church and once strong and lovely nation.
January 7, 2013 at 4:16 pm
I think we all need that message, Cape Cod Anchoress. I don’t know whether it helps or not, but from history I’ve read and studied and taught about our nation, it’s always been a struggle to “get it right.” After WW II, in the 1950s, for many of us we seemed to “have it right”–but I grew up in Florida, and it wasn’t “right” for the blacks, who had to go to schools which were vastly inferior to ours (run down buildings, few textbooks, etc.) –The film _Lincoln_ reminds us of how hard it was to end slavery. The American Revolution itself and its aftermath was a long, slow, difficult process. One could go on and on. And church history, itself, is replete with challenges and things that you wouldn’t think Christians would let happen. Original sin has never been very far away from us and our institutions, and we have always needed a Savior.
January 7, 2013 at 3:58 pm
Philip, my comment about the “CofE position” is a realistic supposition of implications from their decision, not a citation of any official statement. I acknowledge that viewing celibate civil unions as no impediment does not necessarily necessitate agreeing that they are a good thing, but it isn’t that far of a leap of logic to “a possible state worth blessing” from “no impediment”.
January 7, 2013 at 5:31 pm
You’re right, that leap is an easy one, and some Evangelicals have made it. I suppose that is why Reform and CEEC would rather not go there.
January 8, 2013 at 4:15 am
Bruce, interesting link. It’s been a while since I’ve visited that blog, as it tended to be a forum where people ranted more than seriously engaged one another for a time (IMHO). I think the oversexualization of our age has done more damage to psyches, identities, and relationships over the past 50 years than any perceived “goods” acheived by the sexual revolution. There’s a lot to be said about recovering the celibate lifestyle as a blessed state alongside the faithful married lifestyle. It makes us look like the ones with real choices to offer, blessed fidelity on one hand or blessed chastity on the other, not just a glamorized realized sexual potential vs. a frustrated debilitating sexual abyss.
January 9, 2013 at 1:25 pm
So, I understand you to be approving of the C of E’s decision to allow two men/women of homosexual orientation to live together so long as they do not have sexual relations? How does that square with Ephesians 5.3?
Further – as Church Society’s statement suggests, this is pastorally unhelpful for those Christians who struggle with same sex desires.
“Partnerships and Christian Leadership
The church is open to all people, whatever their sexual orientation, to respond to Jesus’ call to “Repent and believe the good news!” (Mark chapter 1 verse 15). We stand in firm agreement with the church’s clear and biblically-faithful statement that sex is exclusively for heterosexual marriage.
We recognise how pastorally unhelpful the existence of civil partnerships is for gay, lesbian, and bisexual disciples in our congregations who are positively committed, in response to God’s word, to celibacy and fleeing sexual sin daily. Like many heterosexual believers, some have given up long-term relationships in their pursuit of Christ-like godliness in this area, often with great pain and immense difficulty. Our prayers are with them, and we would ask the whole church to be sensitive and supportive, as they look to Christ Jesus our only Lord and Saviour.
In this context, we do not believe that church leaders at any level should confuse and undermine the call of the gospel — to deny oneself and follow Jesus — which unfortunately would be the case if those who have chosen a different path by entering civil partnerships are permitted to undertake authorised public ministry in the church.”
January 10, 2013 at 1:52 pm
Whom among the various commenters above are you addressing?
January 10, 2013 at 7:37 pm
Whomever – esp Philiip’s opening comments.
January 10, 2013 at 9:31 pm
Eph 5.3: ‘fornication and all impurity or covetousness must not even be
named among you, as is fitting among saints’—we shouldn’t be talking
about it, that’s for sure, but the false teaching in the church leaves us little choice. As far as what’s pastorally helpful or unhelpful for people trying to be celibate when homosexual behavior is their temptation, I don’t really know enough to comment. I don’t know any one in that position. But I think someone who says he is celibate should be given the benefit of the doubt till his behavior removes the doubt.
January 11, 2013 at 1:15 pm
Philip: I think you missed my point. I don’t think Paul means we shouldn’t talk about it – but our lives should be so transparently moral – esp in sexual realm, that no one would even wonder or think that we are living otherwise. Living together under 1 roof, and not married, whether homosexual or heterosexual is ‘not fitting’ for a believer, to say nothing about a bishop.
February 4, 2013 at 2:16 pm
At first glance, what Jim says above seems obvious. However, the Lutheran pastor of the church my son and daughter-in-law regularly attend with their young children is in an openly gay relationship. He is “transparently moral” in all other respects, the parish is healthy and active, and stood by him when he announced the relationship several years ago. He baptized both of the children. For me to say “he is an open sinner, do not attend that church” would be to take away that family’s relationship with part of the body of Christ.
February 5, 2013 at 6:26 am
If it were my son, I would say exactly that. And if he took my advice, he would not lose his relationship with the body of Christ, but help that part of the body of Christ correct its mistakes.
February 5, 2013 at 7:29 am
Reply to Fr. Wainwright below: but it’s my son, and my daughter-in-law. They firmly believe in the changes in thinking in many churches on this issue. They did not start attending the church because of its thinking on that issue, but when it came up, they firmly supported the pastor. My choice: be glad they are part of a Christian community (not hypocrisy for me because I disagree that people who think that way on the sexual issues are not Christian), or join the side which they think is misguided, and have their church be a source of dissension when we are together, rather than a source of unity.
January 10, 2013 at 12:43 pm
I agree completely. Just as an example from my own perspective, as a person who sinned in heterosexual relationships, I had to flee completely from “occasions of sin”: not go to movies with sexual content or listen to romanic or sexally-oriented music that for other people may have been fine. These things are not fine for me. God has given me back sexual purity at the price of vigilence, death to self, and battle with the enemy. It makes no spiritual sense to imagine people remaining in same-sex partnerships and giving up the physical relationship. Even if they do, their relationship is not based on Christ and most likely needs to be renouced for the sake of their own sanctification/healing.
January 11, 2013 at 10:42 am
Thanks for your frankness, Cape Cod. You commented above, about changes in sexual mores that are either condoned or ignored by the psychiatric community, of which you are a part: ” These changes were made with no real “scientific” evidence. In fact, the worst part of all these changes in the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) is that now there is no research into what is normative or healthy sexuality.”–Thinking about what both you and Zoomdaddy have said: One way to support what is “normative or healthy sexuality” is to find the passages in the Bible (not the OT numerous wives and concubines ones) that support what many people have thought of for centuries as “Biblical sexuality” (sex within marriage, monogamy, and fidelity to one’s spouse) and contrast it with the examples detailed in a huge volume published years ago on sexual expression across many, many cultures over the past millennia or two–_The Construction of Homosexuality_). Another way is to examine practices which have been made “normative” through films, books, songs, articles, etc. since the abandonment of film censorship successfully put through by Jack Valenti in the 1960s, the popular and destructive “Playboy” philosophy thoroughly outlined by Hugh Heffner in the early 1960s, the pushback by Hollywood against Al Gore’s wife’s attempts to draw attention to the sadism and masochism in many popular songs in the 1980s, and attempts by organizations like the ACLU to make censorship of almost any kind a violation of the First Amendment. It’s almost like attempts by the NRA to make any kind of gun control a violation of the Second Amendment.
February 3, 2013 at 11:13 pm
wow. This thread is pretty crazy. At least from a pastoral point of view, the church ought to look at this from a more scientific point of view. One thing this conforms in me- if I was gay, I could not be Christian. Since I have many gay Christian friends, my choice is either to shun them (effectively) or consider another reading. I’m out of here.
February 3, 2013 at 11:40 pm
Peter, there’s more to this thread than the homosexuality issue, if you wouldn’t mind re-reading what I wrote above on the subject of the Playboy Philosophy (NOT about homosexuality) which Hugh Heffner promoted starting in the 1960s. I wrote it in response to what CapeCod and Lenny were saying about changing heterosexual norms and as you can tell, I have strong negative feelings about the Playboy Philosophy (Heffner formally set it out in his magazines in the very early 1960s). –The church has not been looking at those particular changes from a scientific point of view as far as I know, but since the 1970s the church has taken a very serious interest in changing viewpoints in the scientific community about homosexuality. The Episcopal Church’s governing body has concluded not only that you most certainly can be a Christian and gay, but that your relationship can be blessed and that you can be ordained. The National Cathedral in Washington welcomes gay marriages, as well as do other Episcopal churches. A minority of Episcopalians strongly disagree and left the church because of the changes. If I understood the 2012 General Convention’s voting, it’s up to individual dioceses and parishes to decide whether to implement those changes.
February 4, 2013 at 6:13 am
You said it was “a minority that strongly disagree and left”, but perhaps more disagreed and stayed? That is my case. I also agree about what has happened to marriage. It is starting to disappear–and as usual the people that are being jurt the most are the poor. We do have some research about that. It all shows that marriage is better for mental health and properity than cohabiting or being a single parent–by a long shot and that children raised in a married two parent family do much better in every realm than in ev ery other combination. It seems to me that the homosexual and feminist political forces probably started out with a real compassion for the suffering of homosexuals and women. However, their remedies and completely off the mark. It is the same for communists. They seem the poverty of the poor in terms of them having less money than rich people so they think–let’s twist the economic system to extort money from the rich to give to the poor. But in all these cases, the “haves” are demonized instead of being seen as persons loved by God. The vision of the Father in bringing creation back to Himself through Christ’s death on the C hrist into a loving, orderly New Creation is not even considered. These forces do not see themselves as sinners in need of grace and salvation. They never talk about their own repentence. Yet that is where every true change must begin. That is where Jesus began every time. When the Kingdom of God came night–He said repent.
February 4, 2013 at 6:19 am
Sorry there were a loto of typos in the above. “their remedies are….”; “communists. They see the poverty…”; “through Christ’s death on the cross..” “Kingdom of God came nigh ..” Sorry, I am very careless.
February 4, 2013 at 1:33 pm
Fleming Rutledge seems to follow along the same train of thought as the in-coming Archbishop of Canterbury, distinguishing between what I guess we might call “theological” and “civil” concerns. I think it’s a difficult thing to keep a grip on both horns of the dilemma.
http://ruminations.generousorthodoxy.org/2013/01/seneca-falls-selma-stonewall.html
February 4, 2013 at 5:45 pm
All sinners are welcomed without condemnation by Jesus. He came to save sinners. Salvation is a free gift. No sin is excluded. The problem with the homosexual agenda is that they want to say that homosexuality is not sinful, just another lifestyle choice.
February 4, 2013 at 8:58 pm
Thanks, Fr. Robison, for the link to Fleming Rutledge’s comments. –Had lost a post I thought was going to be on this blog–she said many of the things I was going to say. –Cape Cod, I agree with you that there is a homosexual agenda and has been for a long time: that is, a concerted effort to change minds about the sinfulness (from a religious standpoint) or mental healthfulness (from a medical and scientific standpoint) of acting on being gay, with the aim of changing laws and practices regarding employment opportunities, marital status,medical treatment, community organizations, and other legal and religious situations, and their treatment by society in general. We can call it a “problem” that they do not consider the behavior sinful, but the fact of the matter is, they don’t and many “straights” agree. We are discussing Romans 1: 28 and the verses which follow, 29-32, on another blog. Verse 27 had said the behavior resulted from worshipping idols and spelled it out for women and men, verse 28 said it led to depravity and was evil, and verses 29-32 were a long list of sins such as slander, envy, murderousness, etc. said to result from such behavior (which itself had resulted from worshipping idols). The fact is, people in long-term monogamous same-sex relationships do not exhibit such behaviors any more than straights, and contribute to society in many positive ways. I think I understand some of the objections which you mention, which don’t include the aforesaid list of horrific traits, but are nevertheless problematic. And I have reservations about the wisdom of society appearing to promote the behavior to the immature, knowing that there is a spectrum of orientation, and that those “in the middle”–and eventually society in general–could become as lax sexually as the ancient Romans and Greeks (and other non-Jewish, non-Christian societies). But RIGHT NOW the church is stressing monogamy, fidelity, and caring and I have no reason to believe the church will stop. So: where do we go from here? I know there are many impatient people on both sides of the issue, but the impatience has gotten us a split church and in our diocese, we lost the majority of our parishes to the more conservative side. Those of us who remain have mixed convictions about the issue and are trying to rebuild the diocese despite our disagreements. The Barnabas Project has “no Plan B” as one of its names: despite the fact that a large number of evangelicals remaining in the church have the conservative point of view on the issue, they do not plan to leave the church if their view on that issue does not prevail. So we keep talking and we keep listening.
February 5, 2013 at 12:51 pm
The word that keeps coming to me in all this is healing. As you know I am quite clear and strong about adhering to Scripture as far as what is acceptable in the Body of Christ for sexual conduct, but the Holy Spirit must convict.
Clearly when people’s hearts are hardened, God gives them up to their own devices. Do you all think it is then up to other members of the Body to correct in love? To use our various gifts–e.g., those of healing? I minister to homosexuals in my practice (which is not an overtly Christian counseling center). I minister to men and women who live together outside the bonds of marriage. The Holy Spirit works in their hearts through the love of Christ in healing their broken-heartedness and sin-sickness as He is continually healing me ever more deeply.
For myself, although I am a member of an Episcopal parish church which has “gay” so-called married couples, I also have fellowship as an Oblate with a Benedictine monastery that has remained true to the Scripture’s teaching on the ordering of priests and marriage and sex, sothat gives me a lot of support and balance.
But I still find it awkward.My rector knows how I believe, but I want to be loving and united with the other members, not ashamed of my position, but not harsh and hurtful toward them either.
February 7, 2013 at 1:07 pm
This website is one good example of why Evangelicalism has been so marginal to The Episcopal Church since Cummins split in the 1870s. Wake up, people! Stop shooting yourselves in the foot every 50 years if you want Evangelicalism to mean anything in TEC!
Kurt Hill
Brooklyn, NY
February 7, 2013 at 2:52 pm
Can you be more specific?
February 7, 2013 at 3:20 pm
Perhaps Kurt is implying we should have all left with the split? I met someone who was part of the Reformed Church a few years ago–he said the trouble with Episcopalians was that we didn’t realize we were the “royalty,” that is, saved Christians, the “elect,” in a different class from others and that made us weak. We should remember and take advantage of our inheritance. I think that’s one expression of Calvinism? –Anyway, I’ve been being “soaked”, in a sense, in the renewal movement of the 1970s-2000s the last few days re-reading our Anglican Fellowship of Prayer newsletters, all the great teachers and speaker we had over the years. It would be nice to rekindle that spirit. Tons of cassette tapes, but I don’t have time to listen to them. More Wesleyan than Calvinist, probably. Not confident, but hoping. I’d like to see a serious academic study done of the renewal movement and the many types of Episcopalians, both clergy and lay, who participated in it; its strengths (with reasons why the renewal of renewal would help the church as it did in many places in those years), and its weaknesses (why it faltered, what parts of it got blamed for, what shouldn’t be repeated, etc.).