From here:
In this case, the bishop said during some brief introductory remarks in French that he had received a letter objecting to the ordination of Alain Brosseau as a deacon and Donald Boisvert as a priest and appreciated the respectful and dignified tone of the objection but did not agree with the arguments and was proceeding with the ordinations.(the letter is similar to ones the same six clergy – Rev. Nick Brotherwood, Rev. Linda Faith Chalk, Rev. Michelle Eason, Rev. Chris Barrigar, Rev. Canon Bruce Glencross and Rev. Tim Wiebe – have presented on similar occasions in the past, saying the signers believe sexually active same-gender relationships are incompatible with scripture and, if civil marriages, with church law and traditions.)
I vaguely remember Norman Mailer writing (or perhaps it was in an interview) that if one believes something strongly enough, then the only defence of that belief that has integrity is one that goes in swinging – he was an amateur boxer. I’m not sure that that would work in a cathedral but, on the other hand, a “respectful and dignified” objection that everyone knows will be ignored seems to me to be worse than a waste of time: it is little more than a ritual conscience absolver.
If only the newly consecrated Donald Boisvert were as reticent in his panegyric to phallic worship in homoerotic and sadomasochistic sex. From his book, “Holy Sex” [Correction: “Holy Sex” is actually a section from Boisvert’s book Out on Holy Ground: Meditations on Gay Men’s Spirituality):
Anyone who has ever publicly cruised other men, or participated in some of the more arcane rituals associated with S/M sex, for example, will understand the powerful, almost overwhelming pull of the masculine and the unspoken codes with which we surround and protect it. Masculinity represents many things for gay men: potency, dominion, authority, abandonment, protection. As the dominant masculine symbol, the phallus acquires many characteristics of the holy. This is not a particularly modern interpretation. Phallic worship is as old as human civilization, and perhaps as controversial today as it was in the past. It has always been transgressive, associated with disorder and excess, with rioutous freedom and wanton sex. …. I call gay sex “holy sex” because it is centred on one of the primal symbols of the natural world, that of male regenerative power. The rites of gay sex call forth and celebrate this power, particularly in its unknown and unknowable anonymity. Gay men are the worshippers paying homage to the god who stands erect and omnific, ever silent and distant.
And Christ fits in this “holy sex” glorification how? Seems a new Pauline message to these modern day Corinthians is needed yet likely to be ignored.
Maybe this shows us the sort of thing Paul may really have been confronted with when he wrote Romans.
Sad to say that those who are in favour of the homosexual agenda, or perhaps even members of it, are now firmly in charge and well established. The only type of “objection” that will mean anything is outright and blatently obvious disobedience. Such as showing up at a Worship Service of Holy Communion being conducted by Donald Boisvert, actually going up to the Altar Rail, and then as he approaches turn around and walk away. If any asks why you are doing this reply with “this man is no priest”.
He’s a pretty wonderful priest, actually. I often take communion from him. So do my children.
“I call gay sex “holy sex” because it is centred on one of the primal symbols of the natural world, that of male regenerative power. The rites of gay sex call forth and celebrate this power, particularly in its unknown and unknowable anonymity. Gay men are the worshippers paying homage to the god who stands erect and omnific, ever silent and distant.”
Not sure how you can call a man who writes such stuff a “wonderful priest”. Perhaps he is a nice enough chap, likeable and friendly. But if this is what he actually believes than “this man is no priest” for he is preaching a false gospel.
I’ll take it up with Christ when the time comes. I’m more interested in the good things this priest does in my parish, for the people who need it. He’s also a thoughtful, erudite preacher. I’m concerned with my own sagging soul quite enough without needing to dream up scenarios where I take it upon myself to humiliate people in public.
Could the reason for your “sagging soul” be related to your apparently disinterest in holding rigorously and passionately to the message of the gospel, once and for all delivered to the saints? Your focus appears to be on good works, rather than on the essential faith that motivates them. If so, you could achieve more by signing up to a local community charity.
Such a supine attitude toward the truth, overlaid with vague disrespect – “I’ll take it up with Christ when the time comes” – speaks volumes. Let me assure you, my friend, when you stand before Christ you will not be taking anything “up” with him. Your mouth, like mine, will be firmly shut, with the exception of yielding assent to his final verdict.
Your own soul isn’t sagging? In need of salvation?
Who needs to dream?
This speaks the truth in love how, exactly?
Has it not been spoken in such a way many times? Would some moderate dose of tough love not now be appropriate?
I don’t think that the behaviour advocated here is tough love – it is just bad behaviour. We have clear biblical instructions on how to deal with false teachers and this doesn’t fit.
There are Biblical instructions on how to deal with false teachers and people who sin, especially if they do not heed the initial cautions nor the discipline of the congregation. See Thessalonians 3:14-15, Galatians 6:1, 1 Corinthians 4:12-13 and, in particular, Matthew 18:15-17. When church discipline brings about repentance, then the person is to get love and forgiveness, according to 2 Corinthians 2:5-8.
Speaking the truth in love so many times in the past does not appear to have worked. I see no repentance. Therefore, in my opinion, Amp’s approach may fit But that’s just my opinion.
I get sick and tired of all of this it just seems to go on and on and one just grinding away. I don’t go to Church to listen to this stuff but go to hear the Gospel preached. That is the purpose of the Church.
“Jesus wept.”
The Almighty God always has the final say in all matters. Let His Holy Name be praised!
I wonder if the diocese would offer “respectful and dignified” objections if I hung up a swastika during my church services? No? Oh.
In other words, they only expect “respectful and dignified objections” when they disagree with the protest. If they agree, then they expect violent language at least.
The technical term for this is “hypocrisy”.
I’m sorry you’re all so upset. Nothing much I can do about it.
Still, I’m pretty sure none of you would actually be impolite and/or unkind enough to go through with AMP’s “fighting the good fight for the Lord and being seen doing it” script, not even AMP. I’m convinced you’re all, in fact, much nicer than that.
Actually Vincent, there have been a number of times over the past year when I have been in Church and not gone up to the Altar Rail because I would not participate in what I can only consider to be a lie. Admittedly this is not as extreme as what I suggested above. But I have noticed that I do get looks from the others present. No-one as yet as ever asked me why I did not go up for Holy Communion. But if anyone ever does ask I will treat that person respectfully and tell them the truth.
Okay. Fair enough. 🙂
Furthermore, David, I can’t find any of the bits you quoted from the book “Holy Sex” via the links you provided. And I’m astonished to see that there is no book called Holy Sex anywhere on Donald’s very complete resume on the Concordia website — did I miss it? I’m very confused.
Maybe he got the title wrong, was it this book?
http://books.google.ca/books/about/Out_on_Holy_Ground.html?id=ql_XAAAAMAAJ
Kate is correct, the title of the book is “Out on Holy Ground: Meditations on Gay Men’s Spirituality”.
The part I quoted from is a section in the book called “Holy Sex”; you can find the excerpt here.
I’ll add a correction to the original post.
I find it interesting that you took the trouble to look for the quote, Vincent. Does that mean you disapprove of what Deacon Boisvert wrote?
No, it means that I’ve learned not to trust Internet quotes until I’ve checked them out. 😀
Thanks for the correction.
I don’t have any problem with the quote itself.