The sad thing is if my bishop does decide to force a split by schisming our diocese off from the American Anglican church because of his bigoted views of homosexuality, the church I grew up in will be a casualty. This is the church which is directly responsible for me being not only Christian, but Anglican. The love and acceptance they showed me when no one else would, not even, at times, my own family, helped me survive my adolescence and gave me something I could trust. I’m still in touch with people who go there. From what I’ve heard, the congregation is split roughly 50/50 over this issue, and the town isn’t big enough to sustain 2 Anglican churches. I’m not the only outcast this church gave a safe-haven to. I’m very much afraid that, if the church does split over this issue, one of the casualties will be my old church and, next time there’s a kid who can’t conform in a small town which thinks its Lake Woebegone, there won’t be anywhere for them to turn. The church which saved my life may die, and all because of what I can only see as a bishop’s blind arrogance. Then again, oddballs like me don’t matter, do we?
Which is one of the reasons I’m so proud of my Jewish ancestry.
I too find that appalling.
I assume you’re talking about polygamy, and I believe you have a point. Here’s what, AFAICT, is the operative Anglican position on polygamy, a resolution from Lambeth 1988:
There does seem to be a kind of double standard here, doesn’t there?
There’s certainly nothing similar on the books regarding gays “who respond to the Gospel and wish to join the Anglican Church.” Does the Anglican Communion recommend that they be welcomed with their partners and children? No, they don’t.
And that’s just items 1-3 in the polygamy resolution. Then there’s #4. The African churches that benefit from this resolution clearly aren’t being told to expel Christians who enter into or extend polygamous marriages while they are Church members. And given that some African bishops argue that polygamy “should not be regarded as inherently sinful but…may be less than complete expressions of the Christian way,” (see paragraphs 56 and 62 on pp. 9, 10), it’s doubtful that they intend to ‘discipline’ Church members entering into polygamous relationships with more than a slap on the wrist. Certainly nothing obliges them to do more.
To the extent that they fail to extend similar sympathy towards those who wish to enter into or remain in committed same-sex relationships, they are rebuked by pretty much everything Jesus ever said.
This question deserves a serious response, because a good answer would get to the heart of a lot of things.
The most important thing, IMHO, is that Christianity is not about living “by a set of rules.” It’s about living in communion with Christ and about loving one’s neighbor.
Jesus said if we do these things, we will have fulfilled the Law. Paul said (repeatedly) that we who follow Christ are no longer under the Law but are saved by grace. (Outback theology: “no rules, just right.” :D)
While Jesus and Paul were referring specifically to the Old Testament Law, it goes without saying that the thrust of their message with respect to the Law wasn’t the failure of that particular Law, as opposed to some new, improved set of rules that Christians might someday come up with. It was about the limitations of Law generally.
So Christians aren’t a group of people who set out to live by a series of rules, and being a member or not isn’t about agreement with rules and practices. It’s about being a part of a community of people who are lending support to one another in their attempts to serve Christ.
So if that’s what you’re about, you’d want to be part of such a community. Siege spoke rather eloquently on the value of communities of this sort a few posts back, and I can’t improve on what she said.
No, it was a combination of frustration at being unable to figure out your meaning for sure (and I don’t deal well with frustration), and asperity based on this being the second or third time that you’ve appeared to be taking casual potshots at my church, for reasons I don’t have a clue about. “best” was not the best choice of words I could have made. But if you don’t like it, too damn bad – you’re the one who showed up here and threw in a rather cryptic one-liner about someone else’s faith. I indicated I needed explanation, in a tone you apparently don’t care for.
So let me make it plainer: “Say what you mean. In non insulting ways. Or STFU.”
I didn’t take any sort of potshot.
I wasn’t intenting to be cryptic or insulting.
You apparently are.
It took me quote a while to think of a civil way to respond to your comment. Maybe you should take some more time yourself (even if this is in the pit).
I’ve reread emarkpt’s original comment & can’t figure out how Poly could find it offensive, unless the use of “primates” was in error & Poly saw it as insulting.
It seems all he was saying was the the leaders ratified what the people had already decided. That strikes me as a neutral observation.
Anyway, I’ve held my comments to myself through all this. I’d hate to see this become a pissing contest due to a misunderstanding.
Right - it looks to me like **Polycarp ** and **emarkp ** are in violent agreement. **Polycarp ** said the decision with respect to the elevation of Gene Robinson was made by the membership of the church; **emarkp ** expanded by noting that the Primates were being true to the intent of their membership by agreeing to withdraw from the Worldwide communion rather than over-ride the will of their members.
I assume **emarkp’s ** post could be taken as a sarcastic "riiiiiight. . . "; and **Polycarp’s ** “you’d best” could be taken as a threat; but I don’t think that’s how either post was intended.
Are you saying that the Episcopal Church USA itself made the decision to leave the Anglican Communion when it ratified the Diocese of New Hampshire’s choice of Bishop and that the primates are simply ratifying what the ECUSA had already decided? That’s what I’m getting out of your post. It’s really confusing.
I’m all for “Free beer for all” but the “Sauerkraut is a food group” thing, nah. However, change Sauerkraut to cookies and I’ll lend you some Scotch tape to post your theses. I’d say I’d lend you a hammer, but really, I know you wouldn’t want to take a chance of ruining your manicure with all that hammering.
Gosh, I’m sorry you are all so offended that the Anglican Communion hasn’t suddenly rejected centuries of scriptural understanding and church teaching, and ecumenical relationships with most of the rest of the Christian world, to accomodate your personal sense of justice and modern sexual morality. How dare they? :rolleyes:
Instead of the giant pile-on upon the Anglican Primates here in the Pit, why don’t some of you respond to the thread in GD, where we can actually have a discussion, instead of calling names? Clearly, half of you don’t give a shit about why the Primates said what they did; you just don’t like anyone telling you you’re wrong, and it’s easier to call them troglodytes then to have an actual conversation.
Skammer, you know better than that. There are people who do give a shit about what the Primates said, on both sides of the fence. And “throwing out centuries of traditional sexual morality” is not what we understand ourselves to be doing – as you explained, yourself, in the GD thread.
I don’t care for drive-by snide remarks, from anyone. And if emarkp cares to explain himself, as opposed to taking umbrage at my taking umbrage at his apparently committing one, I’ll be glad to apologize for any misunderstanding and debate whatever it was he thought he was clearly saying with him – possibly even agreeing with him.
That said, I’d be very interested in your assessment of Peter Akinola as a religious leader. I don’t care for his style in what I’ve seen reported of his remarks (which of course were in aid of a particular “hot” story), and I happen to know personally the in-laws of one of his suffragans and have third-hand that he’s a variation on the John Allin theme, so to speak.
I think RTFirefly has raised a couple of issues worth debating, relative to the consistency of the Primates’ decision. And I think that charity towards all is called for – and is markedly lacking in much of the rhetoric I hear.
Finally, if I have to take a stand, it will be on what my Lord commands as most important, what I’ve committed myself to in the Baptismal Covenant. I am quite sure Siege and Baker and Vlad/Igor feel much the same, and I sincerely hope that you too will be standing at our side.
I’ve considered replying in the GD thread. I’ve even started to once or twice. The reason I haven’t been able to is this fight is personal. I know of one parish in the north of my diocese which is prepared to split from the diocese over this issue because they support Bishop Robinson; I’ve heard that another organization is prepared to split from the Anglican church because they oppose Bishop Robinson. My own bishop who not only opposes homosexuality but also the ordination of women priests and who damaged a former priest of mine, a man I greatly respected, is leading the split.
If the Episcopalian church schisms, the church I grew up in will almost definitely be a casualty, as I said earlier. They’re not perfect – one of the reasons I left them is because of the way they, in effect, fired their last priest – but they’re one of the few things I had going for me for a teenager. They’re not on the frontlines of this debate; they’d rather it just go away. Nevertheless, like a raw infantryman caught in cross-fire, they stand to be a casualty of the idiocy, intolerance, and un-Christianlike behaviour that seems to have infected the church I love, and the people threatening schism are the ones opposing Bishop Robinson’s ordination. Would I be as upset if it were people who favor homosexuality threatening schism if Bishop Robinson wasn’t ordained? I can’t honestly answer. I think I would be, if only because I know what many people’s attitude toward homosexuality is and that most people hate change. Good Lord! I was a member of my diocese’s Commission on Racism and I know full well there are people who consider themselves good Christians who see interracial marriage as immoral or who aren’t comfortable when a black family turns up in their church. If racism still exists, however unpopular, it’s expecting a full-blown, blatant miracle to expect opposition to homosexuality to vanish overnight and I suspect God’s given up on that kind of miracle. Besides, if I recall what I read about Moses and the Exodus, big, flashy, blatant miracles don’t necessarily work all that well in the long run.
This isn’t an abstract debate for me. On the one hand, I’ve got an old, true friend, a man who showed me kindness and was nice to me when being nice to me only subjected a person to more insults. That’s not an exaggeration; that’s reality. He’s been with his partner for 11 years. How can I not be glad he’s found someone to love him, honor him, and, with any luck, spend the rest of his life with him. Is he any less deserving of happiness than the kid who pulled a knife on me in a stairwell while I waited for a different friend when I was a junior in high school? Is he any less moral than the kids who convinced me I was a less-than-human creature unworthy of courtesy or kindness?
On the other hand, I’ve got a small town church who took that less-than-human creature and gave her a place where she could be accepted and loved. I even got to feel a bit of pride. That church stands squarely on the fault line in this debate. If my bishop decided to leave the ECUSA because of Bishop Robinson’s ordination, half the congregation will follow him; the other half will remain members. The congregation isn’t big enough to sustain two Episcopal churches. As I said earlier, the church which is directly responsible for my Episcopalian faith which in turn saved my life will die.
Such stupidity and utter folly! This can’t be what Christ wanted His church to become! And yet, I see some people in the church which took me in when I had nowhere to go turning away others, turning away each other. I don’t want this sinful destruction to happen, and destroying a church is sinful in my book. Yes, I’ll grant that Bishop Robinson’s ordination may have happened too soon, although I find I can’t look at jayjay or my old friend and be comfortable saying that. Nevertheless, it is done. Is it truly worth destroying each other over this? My soul cries out that it cannot be. Apparently, my bishop disagrees.
I’ll try to stick with points that Polycarp, Siege, and others haven’t raised yet.
It’s hardly my personal sense of justice and sexual morality that informs me that most gays are no more capable of ‘choosing’ to be straight, than I am capable of choosing to be gay. That’s the accumulated evidence of a great deal of testimony by large numbers of gay men and women regarding what it’s like to be them. And need we discuss all the gays who entered into straight marriages, back in the bad old one-closet-fits-all days, with predictably unfortunate results?
Accordingly, the question that must be answered is, what does God expect of these men and women?
If you believe that the Church has historically been aware of the reality of homosexual orientation, and if you believe its historical stance with respect to homosexuality is one that encompasses an honest answer to the question I’ve just stated, then you surely have reason to believe there is no call to reconsider those centuries of wisdom. But you’ll need to explain to the rest of us how you arrived at that those beliefs.
But the reality is that often the Church has approached certain matters with less than full understanding, and this could well be one of them. For most of the Christian era, women were regarded by the world (in the theological sense here) as chattel, let alone second-class citizens, and the Church sadly took its cue from the world, denying women a voice in the Church. That has changed only recently. Similarly, for most of the Christian era, both the Church and the world simply dismissed homosexuality as an abomination, a perversion, evil, without any apparent insight into what it was like to be a homosexual, and why people couldn’t seem to give up same-sex attractions even at the potential cost of their lives.
As others have pointed out, there’s been a great deal of serious discussion in this thread. For my part, I saw this thread but not the other one. That’s why I posted here and not there.
Religion has always been a negotiable thing, in broad terms. What is a part of any given religion at one time may not be a part of that religion later. The most famous illustration of this is the oft-seen and quoted “Letter to Dr Laura”, which sets out a series of edicts from the old testament that are now ignored, and which almost no Christian would now consider anything but utterly immoral. They have been negotiated out of Christianity by people’s disobedience of them.
Religions reflect the societal mores of the society they exist in and no doubt vice versa in a relationship of mutual influence.
Worldwide religions in a world comprised of different cultures with different moralities are doomed to strife and division from time to time.
Also, the Bible wasn’t written as a rulebook. (Aside from the parts of the Torah where the OT Laws are enumerated, but that’s just Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and part of Exodus.) It’s mostly stories - some historical, some mythical, but having something to say about God and man, good and evil, and all that sort of stuff.
It’s not intended to be used as a rulebook (or if it is, it’s Example One of Unintelligent Design :)), and when used that way, it turns out to be full of contradictions. The means by which those contradictions are ‘resolved,’ and the underlying values implicit in those means, change from one group of Christians to another.
It’s not that religious truth is negotiable, it’s that it’s often unknowable. “Who knows the mind of the Lord? Who has been his counsellor?” A Christian should find certainty in the love and redeeming power of Christ, not in rules.
I like to think my personal sense of justice is derived, at least in part, from long talks with a guy I like to call The Lord. When any religious leader makes a decision based on punishing somebody for the way they were born, I find it hard to believe they’ve chatted with G-d lately.
Why do you say “modern sexual morality”? I’m not saying ‘The Biblical condemnation of homosexuality should be ignored because we’re living in the 21st century.’ I am saying 'It was wrong the moment it was written. It should never have existed."
