|
LETTERS FROM A PASTOR
The subject of the letters had to do with homosexuality. The author on the other side felt that same sex intercourse and "marriages" were okay. As you will see from these letters, I disagreed. My arguement was that ANY sexual intercourse outside of one man and one woman in marriage was sinful. These letters are being quoted by that batch of lawyers as "proof" that our church loves perverted sex. Read them yourselves, folks. Then e-mail me back at christcharismatic@cfaith.com with your comments.
THIS LETTER WAS IN REPLY TO THIS INQUIRY BY FATHER JOHN KROLL:
>From: "john kroll" <fr_john23@h...> >Reply-To: EcumenicalCouncil@egroups.com >To: EcumenicalCouncil@egroups.com >Subject: [EcumenicalCouncil] opinions >Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 14:13:02 -0000 > >I guess ,just to add fuel to the fire, ill ask this. What are your (every >one on this board) opinion of Gods Judgement of Sodom AND Gomora? >Please not hateful judgement towards me for asking. I just want to get some >WELL THOUGHT OUT OPINIONS. Fr. John Kroll > >MY REPLY:
From: "Pastor Trimelda C. McDaniels" <warriornun1@h...> Date: Thu Jan 4, 2001 12:53 pm Subject: Re: Opinions-What About Homosexuality?
|
ADVERTISEMENT
| |
+Your Grace and Brothers and Sisters in the Lord Jesus Christ:
I do not think that the orientation of sexual desire outside of marriage between a man and a woman is the same as being male, female, culturally non-European based or old. I disagree that this orientation is blessed by God and okay. As always, what lies in the heart of this disagreement is NOT what we think, but something much more profound.
Here's the argument from the side that says sexual orientation of whatever type is okay:
"Sexual orientation is something that is a)private b)beyond judgment and c)acceptable to God because he or she was created that way by God."
MY ANSWER: If God creates people to have desires and perform actions that are totally contrary to the image and likeness of the Godhead, God is the author of sin, the source of evil and is either dualistic or a hypocrite. After all, what kind of parent would forbid that which He Himself taught the child to do? Therefore, either you must believe that God makes some people to condemned by birth, which would make God evil, or you must reject all that says homosexuality is evil as culturally biased.
If homosexuality is something that is as right and good as hetrosexuality, then we should have gay priests, gay marriages, teachings on gay love, just as much as we have teachings on Black culture and Hispanic culture. We have Black priests, so why not gay priests? We do inter-racial marriages, why not gay marriages?
If you embrace the first premise: that God created people to be both gay or straight as part of His plan, then the next proposals follow naturally.
The problem is that the first premise is a profound heresy. Here's why:
Creation is not an accident. We were not created by nothing for nothing to no end. Sexuality is not an accident. We believe that God created male and female deliberately as a mirror of Who the Holy One is. Women were not created as an afterthought. Sex is the natural expression and mirror of the supernatural love of God for Creation and the Eternal embrace and flow of Love in the Trinity. Sexuality therefore becomes a mirror of the Holy.
For us that is why we believe that men and women have callings to the ministry of the priesthood-because men and women both reflect the Godhead and the reflection of who we are together in ministry was ordained to keep the understanding of God "straight". (A deliberate pun).
To say that God would ordain the deliberate twisting of sexuality be it homosexuality, fornication, incest, sex with animals, etc as the Will of the Godhead is to assign the confusion of sin to God. That's a lie on God. That's all a heresy is-a lie on God. In Him there is NO shadow at all, regardless of what some people like to say. God does not ordain sin. Sin is that which lies on God. Saying sexual expression outside of marriage between a man and a woman is okay is a lie on God.
Let's take something that we see as "natural." Eating and drinking is a mirror of the Holy. If not, why would God take this most natural and ordinary of needs and actions and make both eating and drinking and that which is eaten and drunk a cornerstone of our Faith in the act of Holy Communion? We don't receive Communion in wholeness without eating and drinking the elements of the Sacrament.
Gluttony is the misuse of that action and need of eating. It is a sin because it misses the mark of what eating and drinking is for in this world. It offends God because it takes the need and action of eating and drinking and makes it more important than God. Everytime you or I shovel food uselessly in our mouths, and pile on the pounds, or we guzzle alcohol until we are pie faced, it is spitting and mocking the Lord Jesus Christ all over again. It makes a god of our bellies and elevates a function to be celebrated as a mirror of the Lord's goodness into something that curses us and our world. Gluttony drives people into addiction, robs money from the hands and bellies of the poor, oppresses the worker and swells up the minds of the rich and in general warps the good plan of God.
Now, if a person has a problem with eating and drinking in the way God ordained, we call that person an addict. In the old days they called such a person a glutton. Is it not interesting that while we say that addiction is a disease, that the most effective way to deal with that "disease" is to make a moral decision to CHOOSE to ask a Higher Power for help and then follow moral steps to deal with your addiction? When you have cancer, a disease, your doctor does not recommend that you go to meetings and follow 12 Steps! They cut it, burn it, poison it, or change the immune system of your body to heal that disease of cancer. But, when you are addicted to something you put in your body, you are urged to follow a moral path of surrender, faith, reconciliation and healing.
Why? Because we know deep inside that the heart of addiction is moral sickness. So we point to a moral solution.
But what if the addict (glutton) said: "I was born that way. I can't help how I am. I MUST use drugs. I MUST overeat or I will be unhappy and unable to cope with life." So now some people say, "Oh, okay. Since so many people are addicted to drugs and alcohol and are obese, let's legalize drugs, lower the standard for drunkness and raise the weight standards?" Many people are arguing for that. Why? Because we figure since we can't do anything about gluttony (addiction), because it's so natural-then we might as well legitimize it.
The world has no solution for sin. Let me state that again. The world system has NO solution for sin. If we miss the mark of the Lord's high calling and end up placing something on the altar of our hearts and worshipping it as God, then we're stuck with that idol controlling our lives forever, as far as the world is concerned.
If you have a "natural" inclination towards Gluttony, Pride, Lust, Anger, Greed, Jealousy, or Laziness, then as far as the world is concerned, you're "just that way." Psychology can give you reasons as to why you might be proud, lazy, greedy, etc, but psychology CANNOT give you the power of a solution.
The heart of the heresy that undergirds blessing homosexuality is that what you naturally want to do or what you naturally like is therefore good. So then where is the need for salvation from the original problem and twistedness of sin? That our natural desires are good is a lie that is a direct slap in the face of Jesus Christ who died to save us from our "natural" selves! ("The natural person CANNOT receive the things of God"-remember? By the way, that's not inclusive language. That's what it reads in the Aramaic.)
This heresy says: We're all naturally okay down here. Oh, we might be a little nasty and mean in some areas, but our natural desires are cool. Jesus didn't come to change us. He came to show how much God accepts us as we are. Sin is just confusion. Jesus is the Light in the Darkness that shows us the Way to love God and to love each other.
Follow the trail from there.
If we're all okay up in here, then Jesus didn't save us from anything except a bad feeling of rejection. We are now enlightened and brought to understand us as we are. Baptism isn't the saving power of the Holy Spirit that changes us. We're all okay! We're just making a few nips and tucks here and there and look, it's all good! Come on Holy Ghost, You can put Your stuff over there in the corner next to my Seven Deadly Sins. Don't move a thing, please.
Why do we need Confession anymore? What's there to confess? We're all fine. Hell-well, that's as stupid as saying homosexuality is a sin. Why would God punish us for misunderstandings? Why would God punish us for doing what we were naturally made to do? We're all okay, so we're all going to Heaven. Purgatory is a scare tactic and Hell is just terrorism.
The passion behind this argument is a good one. We don't want to make people feel rejected and unloved. So, we think that in order to make people feel loved and accepted we must love and accept what they do, since the world tells us that what we do is what we are. Love me, love and accept my behavior. Behavior is not sin. Intention is sin and if you don't intent sin, then do matter what you do-unless the behavior is socially unacceptable, that is-you're not really a sinner. (Isn't it fascinating that we can argue that someone who naturally likes to have sex outside of marriage is okay. But a person who naturally likes to hate Black folks is a disgusting bigot?) That's because the pet sin of the day is fornication and prejudice is SOOOOOO retro!)
The problem with the passion is it's based on the same heresy-that natural is good and ordained by God. So, if enough people do it, it's natural and God supports it.
Well, here's the real deal according to the theology of both the old and new covenants. Sin, the deliberate choice of people to take their desires and place them at the center of our philosophy and behaviors warps everything. What we see as "natural" and "normal" is sick at the worst and messed up at best. That's what the Word of God says and that's what logic tells us.
Logic Before Christ came all the philosophers recognized that natural inclinations had been twisted in some fashion. That was the argument for why we needed natural law to control natural desires. The Law God gave on Sinai to the Jews is mirrored by the Code of Noah given to the Gentiles that forbids Seven Things-stealing, fornication, lying, murder, cruelty, idolatry and the lack of community courts to decide justice. If natural is naturally good, why does every culture have laws to regulate natural behaviors?
The Law God saw that we had a need for standards that were pure and given from the Creator. Otherwise, right and wrong depends on public opinion and use. So, Moses was given the Law, which forbids both sexual use and desire(thou shalt not covet) outside of the marriage bed between men and women.
The Prophets When people started dissing the Law and placing what they wanted to do as the basis for right and wrong, God sent the prophets to call people back to God's ideas of right and wrong. For their trouble, they were persecuted and murdered. God is not a liberal or a conservative. Therefore, God destroyed Sodom and Gommorrah for BOTH being sexually immoral and being socially unjust. We know this because of what both Saint Paul and Saint Jude say in the Scriptures, as well as Ezekiel about the cities.Those cities fried for both liberal and conservative sinfulness. God does not play favorites.
Jesus People argue that the Lord never taught about sexuality. Those people must have problems being able to read or reason well. Jesus taught about divorce, marriage, lust, and purity of heart. How much clearer could He get than-"For that reason would a man (a male human being) leave his father and mother and cleave( adhere to, know sexually, embrace with passion) unto his wife, (woman, female human being)?" Jesus did not say man with man, woman with woman, person with animal, parent with child. Jesus further forbid the deliberate delighting in mental and emotional sex with anyone other than one's wife-if a man and husband-if a woman. He said that clearly too. In fact, Jesus suggested that if you have such a natural inclination towards lust that you MUST resist. It isn't a suggestion. Jesus made it a requirement for salvation. When it comes down to the fulfillment of lust even mentally or salvation, Jesus, not me, not the Pope, not Paul, not John, Jesus the Christ says that you must choose to resist that inclination.
If Jesus thinks that this is "okay", then why would the Lord who loves us tell us that these "just natural" desires could take us straight to Hell, a place that was never made for us in the first place?
I'll tell you what's really behind the heresy that the natural is good. It is the lie that there is no such thing as transformational Sanctifying Grace. Christianity without the transformational nature of Grace becomes a set of nice thoughts and fuzzy feelings. Jesus becomes just another guru who takes away our shame over what we like to do. We do not change when we accept Jesus, we simply get accepted just as we are. We are still messed up, but now we are covered up by the Blood of the Lamb-if we even bother believing in the saving Blood of the Lord anymore at all. I mean, why bother, since there is no sin except what we decide is sin?
Nothing changes when you become a Christian as far as this theology goes. If you believe this, then what in the world are you preaching Jesus and Him crucified and risen for? I come to you and ask if Jesus can save me not only from the shame of sin but also the power of sin over my life-what would you tell me? I'm okay and you're okay. Love yourself as you are and "don't go changin'?" What if you're a child molester? Should we lower the age of marriage and consent so they feel okay about their desires? Rome did. What if you're a thief? Should we stop having property so that property doesn't cause theft? (I'm sure we all recognize where that philosophy came from)
In contrast, God says that we may have once BEEN thieves, liars, fornicators, homosexuals and drunks, but now we are NO LONGER because of what Jesus did for us.
If anyone should be able to hold out the hope of change it SHOULD be a liturgical priest or bishop. We take bread and wine and believe because of the power of the Holy Spirit and the words of Jesus that these things become the Real Body and Blood of Christ Jesus. Why? Because God says so and we believe the Lord can do so.
Why then do we not believe that God can change someone who naturally wants to love someone of the same sex or love someone other than his or her spouse or love someone who is a child into someone who loves what God loves? Do we now believe that God cannot save, deliver and change you, me or us into the heart of Jesus Christ? Then what is the nature of salvation and Grace? What do we really believe about Sanctifying Grace?
What do we believe about Confession? Do we really believe when we ask for an Act of Contrition that purpose of change is necessary for true sorrow? Or should we now change the prayer to say, "I can't really say that with the help of God's Grace that I can avoid the near ocassion of sin. I might do it again and I'm not really sure what I did was wrong in the first place."
I think we are lying and cheating people when we offer a Jesus Who cannot and does not offer transformation through Grace in our churches. We exhibit faithlessness and cowardice when all we can tell people is nothing can change in them and for them. Just accept who you are-even if that's not who God says you are-and damn the people who say that's not so.
Homosexuality is no better or worse a sin condition than the other sins it is grouped with in the New Covenant. I don't tell thieves they can't stop stealing. I don't tell adulterers that they can't stop cheating on their spouses. Do you? Then why should homosexuality be any different? The Word of God says they can change. Why would I believe God's Word that says the Lord can change Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus, and yet doubt that this same Holy Spirit cannot change a person's desires?
That doesn't make sense.
I know people who have screamed in my face that they were gay and would always be gay and they would forever stay gay and now years later they aren't. People can say, "Well, they're just fronting." But I find it funny that a straight person can have the hots one time for the same sex and get told to "get out of the closet." But, if a gay person has the hots for a person of the opposite sex then he or she is "fronting and not being honest."
These are people who have married, had kids and lived passionate lives with a person of the opposite sex. These are people who have become nuns and priests without having the need or actions or desires for the same sex anymore. I know one person who has never lusted after the same sex for over twenty years, after being told he would never "go straight."
I didn't use electric shock, guilt, anger. I did nothing but point to Jesus and say if Jesus could change me from a lap dancer in a bar to a celibate for the past 25 years, then God could transform anyone. When I told everyone I had fallen in love with the Lord and was going totally for Him, my friends said, "As much as you love sex? You can't do without a man for more than a month."
That would be true, except for one thing-Jesus Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit. Jesus is Lord. Jesus can and does do anything. Jesus changed me. Hasn't He changed you? Stop teaching the heresy of God forgiving sin by covering sin and saying it's okay.
Teach that God can and does transform us through His Grace into people who are willing to do what God wants through His power. I used to have such a problem with lust that I would think about sex with any man I saw all day long. I used to look at anything shaped like a penis and go off for hours in my head on fantasy sex. I would wake up next to men and wonder how I got there. I tried the shrinks. You know what I was told back in the Sexy 70's? "You're just too uptight. Your sexual drive is natural and normal."When I told them I thought it was out of control, they assured me that "you're just being a prude."
They couldn't help me. My own efforts couldn't help me. Even having a regular boyfriend didn't help me. I just had sex with him every chance I got. The only thing that helped me was Jesus Christ. And guess what, when I fell in love with Him, it turned out that I actually created to be celibate! But if I had listened to the world, I would decided that I was "just that way" and stayed messed up forever.
I didn't give up sex. I just found out that I didn't need it when I found Him. Focus on Him and let God love you into changing through the Sacraments and guess what-you'll change.
Anyone who wants to talk to me further on this subject, email me. I have lots of people who have gone through all sorts of problems who have been delivered by the power of Jesus.
Grace is not just acceptance. Grace is the Divine Power of Change to change you! It is amazing and it is real.
Trimelda C. McDaniels Pastor,Christ Charismatic Liturgical Church Inc.
Does that sound like I approve of ANY sexual contact outside of marriage????? |
But, wait, folks. There's more...
Here comes a reply to John's first letter from a priest who believes gay is okay:
From: "Community Catholic Church of Australia" <ozindcath@o...> > >Reply-To: EcumenicalCouncil@egroups.com > >To: <EcumenicalCouncil@egroups.com> > >Subject: Re: [EcumenicalCouncil] opinions > >Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 07:11:04 +1100 > > > >Yes John > >Even Jesus showed anger and he also showed disdain for the Pharisees and > >their practice of preaching with their words and not with their hearts. - > >reminds me of a few churches around today. > > > >Did you look at the URL I suggested? It doesn't take a quantum leap to >see > >how Pharisaical many are today. I am not trying to be inflamative but why > >stop at gays? Lets bring back stoning for women who commit adultery etc. > > > >I despair as, I believe, does Christ. > > > >Ron+
HERE'S MY REPLY TO THAT:
From: "Pastor Trimelda C. McDaniels" <warriornun1@h...> Date: Fri Jan 5, 2001 6:24 pm Subject: Re: A Little Logic, Please!
|
+Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:
I have a question on the subject of inclusivity. It's not based upon the Bible or on the teachings of the Church or on whether you or me or the bishops on this site are nice or mean to gay people. This is just a sheer logics question. Okay?
If I were to come to your church and I told you that I was engaging in and having intense fantasies concerning ANOTHER type of sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman, what would your response be to both my behavior and my fantasies?
Let me make this a little clearer...
I have met and counseled men and women who are attracted to children as sexual partners. One of them attends my church. So, what I am about to share is based upon REAL stuff, not some case I made up in my head. Several of these men and women have told me the following:
1) They have always been attracted to children sexually. Their first sexual attractions and experiences have been with children; meaning that they had sex and sexual desires with the children younger than themselves for as long as they could remember.
So, to them, this desire and practice comes naturally.
2) They never pushed a child to have sex with them against their wills. "That would be rape," they argued. And the children liked it and refused to leave them.
So, they didn't "force" anyone.
3) They cared for the children in their lives, for the most part. They bought them clothes, food, candy-tutored them, played games with them-tons of things.
So, these weren't one night flings.
4) While having sex with children was considered "wrong" and even "evil" in this society and under this "repressive" religious system of Christianity, they argued that other cultures recognized the sexuality of children and treated them as such.
So, there are other places that accept and respect their sexual desires and choices.
5) They named several psychologists, such as Richard Gardener, and several ministers who agree with their stances. I checked out the authors they referred to and guess what, they're correct. These doctors believe that sincerely and happily testify to their theories. They are saying that the laws are twisted by a warped understanding of Scripture and morality and should be changed.
Now, if one of these people came to YOUR church with a 13 year old in hand, asking you to marry them, would you say:
"Sure, we will welcome you with open arms. Your sexual orientation is a matter of privacy. As long as you aren't forcing anybody to have sex with you by force, then of course, you're as Christian as the rest of us! To speak against your relationship is being judgmental and hypocritical. While, it might be against the law, we believe that this involves a higher law of love. We'll be happy to marry you."
Tell me something, guys. Would you marry the happy couple? Would you call the folks who railed against the relationship "Pharisees and hypocrites"? Would you say it was "sad" if Father Kroll frowned on the marriage?
Do you go to the rallies for those who support these views? Do you wear t-shirts and attend parades for people who believe in the Love of Children? Do you refrain from calling people who follow those views pedophiles? Do you use the terms that they prefer such as "child lovers"?
The arguments are always the same. The feelings are always the same. I have people sitting in front of me sobbing over their sexual love and emotional attachment for boys and girls that they want to love for the rest of their lives. "I can't help how I feel," they tell me. "How can love be wrong?"
I heard the same argument from a man who has sex with miniature horses.His wife sleeps with several other men, while staying married to him because "she loves them all." When I suggested that both of them were into behaviors that were disordered and desires that were not right I was told that I was "stuck up, anal, stupid, cowardly and judgmental."
By the way, the gentleman wanted to have a commitment ceremony with his mares...
Now, you might think I'm making this up. I'm not. I can give you phone numbers if you'd like to check this out.
I hate to sound cynical, but I have heard, "But, it's love and you can't condemn love, etc, etc, etc " from people who were into S and M Liberation, Human/Animal Love, Man/Boy Love. Name it. I've heard and I have probably had someone with that belief in our church.
We don't turn anyone away. But, we figure that the most logical thing to do as Christians is to consistently love and correct that which does not fit the loving teachings of Jesus Christ. When the lady who thought sex with kids was cool came into our congregation's agape, those who had been abused by adults sexually very forcefully said, "Honey, you are messed up!"
These are people who have been hurt by pedophiles-I mean, child lovers.They didn't hate her. They didn't reject her. But, they did tell her the truth. You know what? She was hurt, at first. But later she said that no one had ever talked to her like that without hating her. Now, for the rest time in her life she is exploring the idea of therapy.
(BY THE WAY, SHE ENDED UP LEAVING THE CHURCH, BUT SHE ALSO ENDED UP IN COUNSELING WITH A LOCAL AREA PROGRAM)
The point of logic that I would like to make here is that if the only criteria for right and wrong is how we feel about it and whether someone gets physically hurt, then it would seem that pedophilia, animal love, S and M is cool, as long as no one really gets hurt. If that's how the Church feels, then are we as eager to marry pedophiles as we are to marry gay partners? Why not? What's wrong with ANY sexual desire or behaviors, if "no one gets hurt?"
We don't teach that. My people are walking, talking former examples of what happens when the only law you have is what you FEEL like doing. They believe in Jesus who redeemed us from our natural selves. I will repeat what I said before: A church that does NOT teach the redemption of Jesus Christ from the power of sin does not heal.
But, I'm probably in the minority here. Oh, well. This isn't a popularity contest. But, I would like to have the former pimps, prostitutes, New Agers and others in our group talk to the "we're all just fine up in here" crowd. I'd bet you'd get a whole new view on life.
Peace
Trimelda+ Christ Charismatic Liturgical Church Inc.
WHERE IN MY LETTER DOES OUR CHURCH SUPPORT any SEXUAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE OF A MARRIAGE BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN?
MAYBE SOME JUDGES AND LAWYERS MIGHT BE CONFUSED BUT READ THE GAY PRIEST'S REPLY! HE GOT MY POINT AND THEN SOME!!!!!
From: "Community Catholic Church of Australia" <ozindcath@o...> Date: Fri Jan 5, 2001 7:08 pm Subject: Re: [EcumenicalCouncil] Re: A Little Logic, Please!
|
ADVERTISEMENT
| |
I Lied, it wasn't my last post. And this time I am angry.
PASTOR Trimelda has just done the very thing that so many bigots have done in the past especially when they cannot come up with a educated, reasoned argument. He has tried to equate the homosexual question with pedophilia and, in this case with having sex with horses.
My God man! Are you not aware that 97% of pedophiles are "straight"???? Given that a conservative estimate of homosexuals in the community is around 15-20%, that means that homosexuals are less likely to be pedophiles than "normal", "straight" or "married men".
And how dare you compare the love of two consenting ADULTS to having sex with horses, or the manipulation of a grown adult over a child?
If this is how you perceive people who are different from you? I hope nobody ever perceives you as different and treats you in the same way.
Quite honestly, I am sickened by this line of rationale. If we were to follow you and Fr. John all the way, we would still have slaves (Paul said it was OK!), we'd be stoning women to death for adultery (Deuteronomy I believe). And my friends, even if you were to get rid of all the homosexuals in the world you would still have 99% of rape and incest by pedophiles still occurring. BY HETEROSEXUAL (USUALLY MARRIED) MEN. And you would also lose a great many of your greatest minds, philanthropists and clergy etc.
I'm over this. You can wallow in your ignorance. If you are ever ready to learn something I'll be happy help you.
I cry for the people that are thought of in this manner by supposed men and women of God, and I pray that God forgives the people that treat others this way.
Fr. Ron
DOESN'T SOUND LIKE FATHER RON WAS A BIT CONFUSED BY MY LETTER, DOES IT? HE WAS MAD BECAUSE I COMPARED THE SIN OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE TO THE SIN OF HOMOSEXUALITY. MY POINT WAS THAT BOTH ARE WRONG!
Another Letter from Me in reply:
|
From: "Pastor Trimelda C. McDaniels" <warriornun1@h...> Date: Fri Jan 5, 2001 11:19 pm Subject: Re: [EcumenicalCouncil] that nasty sin
|
+Your Grace:
As a Black Woman who is in ministry I would hardly be counted as an advocate for slavery or for the oppression of women. I've been around the block more than a couple of times too. So, what I am going to say isn't based upon being sheltered or being less than pc. But, regardless of who you are and what sexual orientation you id yourself as, you have no right to diss SAINT Paul.
I would like to know how many times someone beat you up for the sake of Jesus Christ? How many times have you been shipwrecked? How many times has your own family and country tortured and imprisoned you because you stood up and talked about the Blood of Jesus? Paul had his head chopped off for the sake of a God he suffered his whole life for-and gladly.
I'm not talking about whether someone disagreed with you about the morality of homosexuality. I'm talking about whether you, Your Grace, have been put in prison for preaching that Jesus Christ is Lord, God and Saviour. You're pretty brave in dumping your ire on some priest on the internet. Are you that bold when it comes to teaching that Jesus is not just some way or a way but THE Way to people who spit in your face? Can you stand up and preach Jesus as Lord with the same bravery that you can say I'm gay and proud?
You are supposed to be a bishop of the Lord Jesus Christ and you have the nerve to sneer at a man who turned his back on all he loved to follow Christ. Where's your respect? Is that the way you were taught to love the saints of the Lord? You ought to be ashamed of yourself!
If you feel Paul was wrong on something, fine. Disagree. But how dare you sniff in that oh so superior way at Paul's dealings in the faith? Paul was not pro slavery. He knew that if that slave hadn't gone back to his master, he could have been killed by law. Where was the man supposed to run in a world controlled by the Romans? Philemon wasn't a Jewish believer who could have been asked to release his slave as part of the covenant laws. The pagan world that his master came from had the right to punish him if he was caught. With no where to go, Paul sent him back to be Philemon's brother, (did you read that part?) and asked him to treat him as such.
This person also said: "Remain in the condition in which you were called."
I know that doesn't make us freedom loving(?) Americans feel all warm and fuzzy, but let me tell you that when you cannot change a situation, you help people do the best they can. If you were in Communist China, for example, as a bishop, and someone came to you as the daughter of a high official asking about the Lord, would you suggest that she stand up on a table and demand that Daddy and his posse admit Amnesty International into their prison systems? No? I guess either you have some political sense or you're a gutless sell out. Depends on where your head happens to be.
I guess you would have had the slaves all stand up and declare themselves to be free, since they were Christians. Oh, wait! I forgot they tried that under that Spartacus guy, didn't they? And that really worked. (Yeah, right!) And for that grand gesture the slaves would have all died, the church would have been even more repressed and NOTHING would have changed. But, then we would have had politically correct martyrs.
To you, Paul was a less than enlightened product of his times because he didn't tear down the slavery system. Or course he had all that power, don't you know? I mean the Church was not some underground quasi-Jewish sect under persecution from just about everything that moved. It was rich and powerful and influential-right? So, the fact Paul had a quiet, person by person solution to slavery-(how about converting the masters? Hmmmm), just showed how culturally biased he was.
I wonder if you would do as well in that system, your Grace? Did you found hundreds of house churches in secret, under persecution, like poor old, unenlightened Saint Paul? You called Paul a Pharisee when he wrote the entire theology of salvation by Grace. In prison. Knowing he was about to be tortured and killed.
Under the circumstances, from our height as such paragons of goodness and holiness in this century of societal saints, I think that we might be able to cut one of the greatest saints of God, to whom the Lord Jesus Christ appeared to and taught personally, a wee bit of slack, don't you?
I am reminded of how I was told that Abraham Lincoln was prejudiced because he thought Africans might be better off in Africa. (Not that some of my ancestors who were into Marcus Garvey didn't agree with him!) One day, after I shared this view with my father, the former history major, he said, "You know, it's a funny thing how the folks who talk the most, do the least."
"What do you mean, Daddy?" I asked.
"Well, it's easy for people to call names now and say Lincoln was a fake. But, I don't see them freeing anybody and I sure as Hell don't see them getting their heads being blown off for doing it either. People today might get all mixed about what Lincoln was into. But, the people who murdered him were crystal clear. When those bad mouthing Lincoln are willing to do what he did and get their heads blown to Jesus, then we'll talk. Otherwise..."
When you bear the wounds of Jesus in your body for the sake of preaching the salvation of souls, then you can diss Paul. Otherwise...
Trimelda C. McDaniels Christ Charismatic Liturgical Church Inc.
WELL, AT LEAST JOHN AGREED WITH ME...
From: "john kroll" <fr_john23@h...> Date: Sat Jan 6, 2001 1:01 am Subject: Re: [EcumenicalCouncil] that nasty sin
|
ADVERTISEMENT
| | Dear Mother Trimelda, Well put! It saddens me to see so many CLERGY (?) who do not hold the BIBLE as the WORD OF GOD. I wonder just what are they teaching and preaching? Yours in CHRIST JESUS, Fr. John D. Kroll
| |
HE SENT ME A REPLY I WON'T EVEN PRINT HERE. HERE'S MINE:
From: "Pastor Trimelda C. McDaniels" <warriornun1@h...> Date: Sat Jan 6, 2001 12:27 am Subject: Re: [EcumenicalCouncil] Re: A Little Logic, Please!
|
ADVERTISEMENT
| |
+Dear Brother in Christ:
Sorry you're angry. But, why are you dealing with what I asked? I didn't ask if you or any other gay person had sex with horses. I didn't ask if you liked to have sex with kids? No, no, no, no, no, Regis, that is not my question or my final answer. Try again.
First of all, I am TRIMELDA and that is a woman's name. I am a WOMAN. I am a Black Woman with Native American roots running a mission church in the middle of many Mormons who have tried to teach that I am no damn good because I am Black and not much better because I am a woman. You think you know about being different? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Try being a Black celibate, ex Black Panther WOMAN who is a priest out here. Fun in the sun, my man!
Anyway, don't hide behind the non argument that I am saying that homosexuals are pedophiles and so I am a bigot, bla,bla,bla. No, I didn't say that you or any other gay person is a pedophile just because they are homosexual. Duh! I'm not a fool, honey. Anyone can be a pedophile, gay or straight. I grew up in the inner city of Chicago, not Haystack, USA.
And I did not say that gay people screw horses or any other barnyard animal. Go back and read what I said, okay? Or better yet, let me break it down for you right here and now.
I wanted to know why you dismiss the prohibitions against homosexuality as being bigoted when I do not hear you dismissing other forbidden uses of sex outside of marriage the same way. In other words, if an adult has a sexual relationship with a minor and both parties are happy with it, why is that considered wrong by you? The people I deal with often don't see that's wrong. They feel it is okay to love children in this way because:
1) both parties are happy with it 2)no one is being hurt 3) many cultures think it's okay 4) lots of doctors think pedophilia is a prejudiced term and should be dropped in favor of child love or something less "loaded" 5) they don't feel guilty
They argue that people who see their love as evil are "bigots, hurtful, mean spirited and judgemental." (Sound familar?)
Now, please logically explain to me why their reasoning is wrong. The only argument against this position is religious. Outside of that, why is pedophilia wrong? What is your understanding of right and wrong concerning sexual behavior? What is it based on? Logically, if the only criteria for right and wrong in sexual matters is mutual consent, then having sex with anything and anyone is okay. If you don't believe that, then what are you basing your teachings as a minister of the Truth on? Personal tastes?
I understand that you are gay. And when someone asks you to explain why you feel your sexual orientation is blessed by God you freak out and get crazy because you think people are attacking you. I get it. I used to freak out everytime someone suggested that every Black Panther wasn't a hero. But, then I got a little detachment and started noticing that every person of color isn't a saint. (Gasp) After a while when people aksed me something about my color and culture I stopped acting like I had a chip on my shoulder or up where the sun doesn't shine and began to try to understand where the person was coming from.
You are a bigot, honey. You automatically jumped my case and accused me of being some wierdo who was marking you as a horse humper and a baby raper, just because I asked you to define what your limits of sexual right and wrong was.
Actually you did answer my question. I can see by the way you went ape that you believe that sexual love between an adult and a child, even if they consent to it is wrong. Why is that? Society says it's wrong now. But, I can show you lots of people who disagree with that. It's illegal. But so called sodomy used to be illegal too. People used to treat adultery the same way. The law could change. Would you still think it is wrong?
You asked how I treat people who are gay? The same way I treat anyone into sexual behavior or deliberate desiring of sex outside of marriage. I'm not kidding about the guy with the horse or his wife. And guess what? I didn't freak our, scream, faint or vomit. I said the same thing to him and his wife that I said to people practicing adultery or incest or pedophilia-sex outside of committed marriage between a man and a woman is wrong because it is disordered and distorts the full reflection of the Godhead. God can and will change you if you are willing to let God do just that. If you never change, we'll still love you. But we won't lie to you.
Oddly enough that's the same thing we say about stealing, lying, idolatry, abortion, etc. We're soooo boring. All sin is just sin. Jesus can save you from the power of sin. Let Him. That's what I preach.
What do you base your teachings on morality on? If it is the Gospel, then why do you skip the part on homosexual sin but agree with the prohibition against incest, animal love, s and m, etc? Give me a logical reason.
If asking that question means being a bigot, then I'm a bigot. If that ticks you off, then be ticked, brother. But, I'm not going to shut up and go away so you can feel better. Maybe that seems harsh. But, this bigot loves you too much to play Barney with the Gospel. Or with you.
Trimelda C. McDaniels Pastor, Christ Charismatic Liturgical Church Inc. "God's Church of a Second Chance" (Look up Mercy Apostles of the Holy Spirit on Google to read about our order and then hit ANKH to read about our church. I know you might be too mad at me to do that. But, at least you can see where we're coming from so you can yell at me more intelligently.) PS: (208) 528-8984 and I do have an answering machine.
ALAS, BISHOP DOYLE DID NOT AGREE WITH ME AND GOT RATHER NASTY ABOUT IT. AT LEAST HE UNDERSTOOD THAT I WAS TEACHING THAT PEDOPHILIA IS WRONG. GUESS THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH HIS READING SKILLS!
From: BishopDoyl@a... Date: Sat Jan 6, 2001 5:48 pm Subject: had enough
|
ADVERTISEMENT
| |
Dear Pastor TrЁGET http://m2.doubleclick.net/566819/R2C" It is obvious that there is no discussion going on as there is far too much division between our thinking. You two are thoroughly convinced of the validity and absolute rightness of your position on homosexuality and the invalidity of differing views, as mine is. You will not change my mind and neither I nor others will change yours. So be it. We all work for the same Lord and Savior.
Pastor Trimelda, please permit me to say a few things to you. Actually, I do have the right to "diss" Saul/Paul. The good saint is responsible for turning a Jewish sect into a religion that became a force throughout the empire. But he was still human. When he is wrong I have the right to say he is wrong, and when he is right I have the right to applaud accordingly. Paul is wrong in some areas and right in others...because he is a product of his time. I believe I sense that same chip on your shoulder that Augustine had...the reformed sinner...now telling everyone else "I did that...don't do that, because I know what I am talking about." Augustine didn't leave his Manicheanism far behind after he became a Catholic Christian, in the same way Saul/Paul didn't leave his Phariseeisn far behind. Apparently you didn't leave your pantherhood far behind when you committed yourself to Jesus: &! nbsp;You are right and anyone who disagrees with you is against you...and therefore against Jesus.
Also, Fr. Ron is correct in his response to you: you did connect pedophelia, beastiality with homosexuality by the very fact that those are the two examples YOU used and developed. You were the one who went on and on with them: "if one (homosexuality), then why not the other (pedophilia and beastiality)?" It is obvious to me, and I may assume some others on this list, that you really do connect them and see no difference between the psychological, emotional and spiritual difference. I wish I could live in such a (pardon the expression) black and white world. But I don't and hopefully never will. I must say that you certainly put me in my place...only knowing me on the internet. You are so self-assured of your place in heaven that I won't go stripe for stripe: I marched in the '70s against the Viet Nam War and with the NAACP (how many of us white guys had memberships in tha! t organization) while in seminary. I have worn my collar proudly while in Gay Pride marches, witnessing to our Lord and Savior that the Father's love is for ALL PERSONS. I have done prison ministry, police chaplaincy, and mental health ministry. And yes, I have been spit on and cursed during ALL those witnessing actions. From what I have read my poor white ass protestations pale in comparison to your spiritual journey tale of panther to priest. Sister, we all witness how we can where we can as best we can. My witness to Jesus the Christ is mine alone, and I know well there are others whose witness is better, more eloquent, deeper, and of longer standing. All I know is that when I die my only hope is to stand before my Lord and say: "Here I am, I could do no other. Have mercy on me, a sinner." That plea for God's mercy is all any of us have left at our day of judgment.
This EcumenicalCouncil list is for posting the very information that +Bishop James did regarding his pastoral letter. I see no problems in that, but what the hey...I will allow neither you nor Gerry Falwell nor any of your bigoted kind to be the arbiters of the goodness or sincerity of my Catholic faith.
I must tell you that I don't care whether you respond or not, as I will not read anymore postings from either of your emails, I will just delete them as I can only presume that they go one and on about this subject. God bless and know that you are in my prayers. +David
THIS WAS MY LAST REPLY BEFORE I WAS CENSORED FROM WRITING ANYMORE:
From: "Pastor Trimelda C. McDaniels" <warriornun1@h...> Date: Sat Jan 6, 2001 2:40 am Subject: But He Said No
|
ADVERTISEMENT
| | +Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:
I'm dumb. As such I am a good foundress for our Order because our motto is "I Just Work Here." As it says on our church website, we all come from backgrounds as sinners. We were dumb enough and desperate enough to come to Jesus and say, "Save me." We were stupid enough to believe that He could. We were even foolish enough to believe He could change us inside and outside. So, if God uses us now it's not because we're good or smart or cool, it's because we "just work here."
Being this stupid I was also dumb enough to believe that ANYTHING I liked or did in the past that didn't agree with what my Leader Who saved me said was just plain "boo." (That's in the hood talk for something that is basically crap, excuse my French). I believed that if it didn't fit what Jesus said and did, then I needed to ditch it.
Before I was saved I slept with any man I had the hots for who was single. Jesus teaches that fornication is a sin. So, I quit sleeping around. I thought that if He said it was wrong and He paid for me in blood, that meant I was His and I should do what He says. It was difficult at first. But, then the more I allowed myself to love Him and to be loved by Him, the less I wanted to sleep around. Within a year the need to fornicate was gone. God did that. I didn't.
Now I am being told that if I preach that having sex outside of the committed relationship between a man and a woman is wrong, I'm ignorant, intolerant, mean spirited and definitely not up to date.
Okay, maybe you're right and I'm all those things. But, the same Jesus Who saved me and gave my life meaning is the same Jesus Who taught me what I practice and preach on sex. Here's how I reasoned it back in 1976. I read:
"From the BEGINNING of Creation God made them male and female."
Why, Lord?
"For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife."
Why, Lord?
"And they two-"
Male and female? Not male and male? Not female and female? Not child-(children are too young to LEAVE their father and mother), not sister and brother, but a man and a woman, these two?
"And they two-"
Not three, not four, not five, not six-
"And they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore they are not two but one flesh."
That sounds like sex.
"What therefore God has joined together, let no one put asunder."
Whoaa, no sex outside of committed marriage between a man and a woman. Okay, Lord I get it. Help me to stop this sin and make me into what pleases you.
That's how I understood it then.
The same Jesus Who said "This is My Body and This is My Blood" and said, "Bless those who curse you." and said "How hard it is for those who trust in riches to enter the reign of God" is the same Master who said, "But, from the beginning of the Creation, God made them male and female. For this cause, a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife. And they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore, now they are not two, but one flesh. And what God has joined together, let no one put asunder."
Jesus said that. Paul, John, Peter and James were not crucified for me. Jesus was. He said no sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman is holy and blessed by God. If I take Communion as His Real Presence on His word, if I am filled with Sanctifying Grace through the baptismal waters and the Holy Spirit because He said so, then why would I doubt what He had to say about sex?
I love Him, guys. I can't help it. You talk about crying in hurt because you feel rejected about being gay. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. I really am. But, how can I reject Jesus Christ? You didn't die for me. He did. I love Him so much it hurts me to the heart when I say Mass. I can't help it. I just work here. And so I can't ignore what He said. I have to preach that all sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman is wrong because that is what Jesus said. If I lie on that, then I might as well lie about everything else.
I don't care if every bone in my body wanted to screw every man in the world. I don't care if I loved another human being to the point of madness. If Jesus says, No to what I want and seem to love, then NO it is.
Can you bishops please tell me how I can believe one part of what Jesus said and not obey the other? Was I wrong to give up fornication because of what Jesus said? Should I have kept on doing this as long as I didn't make anyone go to bed with me?
I am sitting here, thinking this as I look at the crucifix. Try as I might, I can't look at Him on that cross or think of Him being stripped naked and beatened without thinking of all the sins of sexual impurity that I committed in life. I can't think of that picture without tears in my eyes. And no matter how much I might be brainwashed, unenlightened and stupid, I just can't think of sex outside of marriage without seeing that torn up back and those bleeding wounds.
Sexual sin is no better or worse than greed, pride or sloth. But, it is still sin. And as long as the Cross hangs above my desk, I cannot forgot that it was sin that put my Lord there to die.
As long as that is true, I cannot accept what Jesus calls good as being anything other than good. If you can give me any other way of grasping what Jesus said and is, please tell me. For the love of the crucified I can't see it any other Way. Maybe I am a fool, but I really do believe this stuff.
Yours in the Blood, Trimelda C. McDaniels Pastor, Christ Charismatic Liturgical Church
IF ANYONE IS STILL CONFUSED AS TO WHERE I AND THE CHURCH STANDS ON ANY SEXUAL RELATIONS OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE, THEN I SUGGEST YOU WRITE BISHOP RON FOR CLARIFICATION. HE STILL HATES ME BECAUSE OF MY STANCE ON THESE ISSUES. HE WILL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT, (EXCUSE THE PUN!) | |
BUT JUST TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS-CCLC TEACHES THAT IF YOU ARE A PEDOPHILE YOU ARE SICK AND IN SIN. WE URGE SUCH PEOPLE TO GET HELP. IF YOU HURT OR ABUSE A CHILD AND REFUSE TO GET HELP WE WILL EXCOMMUNICATE YOU! THAT'S PART OF OUR CHURCH POLICY AS THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR THE STATE OF UTAH WELL KNOWS, SINCE WE SENT HIM A PASTORAL LETTER ON THAT.
IF YOU ARE STILL SAYING THAT WE TEACH OR PREACH ANYTHING ELSE YOU ARE EITHER CONFUSED OR DELIBERATELY SLANDERING US AND WE WILL TAKE LEGAL ACTION.
Pastor Trimelda C. McDaniels | |
UPDATE:
WE HAVE HAD AN OFFER FROM A LAWYER TO PURSUE LEGAL ACTIONS AGAINST THE COURTS THAT TRIED TO SLANDER US. WE ARE PRAYING ABOUT THE MATTER. WHILE WE PRAY FOR THE FOLLOWING PEOPLE WHO WERE INVOLVED IN THIS MESS, WE FEEL THAT WE CANNOT STAY SILENT, FOR THE SAKE OF OTHER CHURCHES WHO MIGHT GET THE SAME TREATMENT.
STAY TUNED, FOLKS AND PRAY FOR THE FOLLOWING PEOPLE:
Judge Judith Atherton
Kara Barton
Colleen Nadauld
| |