What’s the URL for this bishop who wants to form a national church?
Oh, and kudos to the Episcopal Church for once again stepping out in front to lead Christendom in the United States, just as it did on the issues of birth control, family planning and female ordination. For a religion that finds its seat in Britain, the Episcopal Church has always been at the forefront of American culture.
So you believe that pi equals 3, eh?
Good for you. Be proud of your Ignorance!
I’m not an Episcopalian, but as a Christian I’m proud of the steps the members of that church have taken to spread the Christian ideals of fraternity and love for all mankind. Here’s hoping the bishops follow suit!
I’m a Presbyterian, and proud of Episcopalians for daring to follow the call of Jesus to love one another.
Poly, I’m not trying to fight with you. You and Seige are probably the posters I most respect on this board. I’ve been on this board long enough to hear your arguments, and I think you’re wrong. Doesn’t mean I don’t still love you 
Jesus commanded us to love Him and love one another. I agree that is the core of our faith. But you can’t use that sweeping statment to justify approval of any manner of behavior. (Actually you can, because that is what you are doing; but you shouldn’t.)
Scripture and church tradition are pretty clear that sex is a spiritual and physical bond between a married man and woman, and inappropriate outside of that context. That includes homosexual sex, adultery, fornication, etc. I would be just as upset if the convention had approved a Bishop openly living with his female SO or one living in an open marriage. Or for that matter, any candidate who held on to behavior contrary to church teaching. If a candidate were openly greedy, or proud, or lustful, and thought is was okay because God made her that way, I wouldn’t support that nomination either.
Zoe: I know the official tally of self-proclaimed Episcopals is around 2.7 - 3.5M in the US. I was quoting a number I heard from a preist referring to actual attendence numbers, not nominal membership. But I don’t have another cite, so I will withdraw my comment. It wasn’t really my point.
I’m confused by your glee at the divisiveness this has caused, and your final comment about Joshua. I guess a little humility is too much to expect from either side. 
summerbreeze, I hope you don’t mean that people who disagree with the decision aren’t loving.
Fair enough, Skammer. At my behest (because I am concerned about the reactions of traditionalists, and don’t want to see them feel ostracized, either), my own parish has been joining in this prayer (p. 818 of BCP):
I hope you’ll see your way clear to share it with us.
IMHO, and I do respect your right to see things differently, a couple which has committed to each other in vows of lifelong monogamous fidelity is married in the eyes of God. That it happens to be two gay men or women who cannot obtain the sanction of state or, at present, church for their marriage makes no never mind – God sees what is in their hearts. A friend of Barb’s and mine is a Lesbian woman who married her partner in 1997, and went to her wedding a virgin, because she believed sincerely in the sanctity of marriage. To equate her commitment to a casual one night stand is repulsive to me.
If I may point out kindly, so as to effectively communicate: I think what Polycarp, Siege, Gene Robinson, et. al., are saying is that the Bible is in fact not clear on the subject of committed, monogamous, homosexual relationships. I think they are saying that although the Bible has been largely interpreted as condemning these relationships, such condemnation is wrong. I think they are saying that Church Tradition is also wrong. They (and others) use the example of slavery, which was vigorously supported by the established church for a very long time, and even held to be “biblical”, and yet now is universally held to be a bad thing.
Make sense?
Mars
Polycarp & Siege are among my favorite fellow Christians on the board. and in a way, I agree with them on this election. It’s about time the leadership of the church takes a definitive stance which has been a long time coming.
Because truthfully, I think it will herald a much-needed schism throughout all mainstream Protestant bodies- Episcopal, Lutheran, Reformed, & Methodist, which I think will result in a new ecumenism among conservative Christians.
Bolding mine.
I guess I’m missing what behavior is being approved of. In the linked article, we have these relevant bits:
Maybe I’m unaware of the current terms being used by the Episcopal Church to intimate (nice double-entendre there for anyone collecting them:D) “Bishop Robinson is engaged in a homosexual relationship with another man, and that relationship involves sexual relations outside the bonds of marriage.” I just don’t see where this comment of yours (which I bolded) stakes its root. What is your premise in bringing up “justif[ication] of any manner of behvior”?
Cite?
Let us assume, for the moment (this being independent of my questions above) that Bishop Robinson is living with his male partner. Now, as I am sure you are aware, it is currently not possible in this country for a man to be married to another man. Thus your “Bishop openly living with his female SO” is flawed because that bishop could be married to his SO; this one cannot.
Another question, then (and this more for any Episcopal) :is it the Episcopal Church’s stance that marriage, or more wholly the sacraments, allowances and such contained therein, is something only for heterosexual couples to enter into? And if so, to what extent is the concept of gay marriage being considered/debated/etc.? How strong a differing body of thought is there that non-heterosexual marriage ought to be something the Episcopal Church participates in/sanctions/etc?
Since being openly greedy/proud/lustful is generally considered an active act/thought/choice, is it your contention that homosexuality is all of those things as well, or does the analogy here lay (another double-entendre for those collecting:D) within the “Bishop Robinson is engaged in a homosexual relationship” bit (which remains, if it is true, unsupported. It may well be; I don’t know the facts behind this so I’m asking)?
Polycarp & Siege are among my favorite fellow Christians on the board. and in a way, I agree with them on this election. It’s about time the leadership of the church takes a definitive stance which has been a long time coming.
Because truthfully, I think it will herald a much-needed schism throughout all mainstream Protestant bodies- Episcopal, Lutheran, Reformed, & Methodist, which I think will result in a new ecumenism among conservative Christians. I’m actually a believer in COCU- but I think there should be two of them- one on the Right (which I’d join if it was Charismatic friendly) & one on the Left.
and on a different point, don’t those of you who bash Torah realize your snide comments reek of anti-Semitism?
Speaking as a former Catholic, I think it’s odd that you don’t understand the joy that events like this bring to those of us that are so often disappointed in the church’s (any church) treatment of gay members. Frankly, this is one of the many things that forced me away from my faith.
This is not simply an ideological exercise- there are real people involved, some that are very devout, involved members of their religious communities, who are constantly shunned due to antiquated church laws.
I don’t see the arrogance in ‘our side’ being ‘gleeful’ at a ruling that opens doors for people who wish to work towards their God.
FriarTed, you might like our parish – evangelical, orthodox, traditional, and pretty Charasmatic-friendly (though I’m not one myself; still too much Baptist in me :))
Poly, I like your prayer. And I have faith that as long as Christ is the head of the Church, that eventually all these things that divide us will be resolved. Ultimately there will be unity, and, to borrow a phrase, the gates of hell will not prevail against us.
I hope I didn’t compare committed homosexual relationships to one-night stands – I didn’t intend to. I don’t want to trivialize those relationships.
Mars, I understand you. I understand that Poly et. al. do not believe that scripture is clear, and believe that church tradition is wrong. That’s the focal point of the debate, after all. I, and many others, believe the scripture is clear, and that the church has been correct lo these many years.
iampunha, I’ll try to address some of your comments, but I do have to get some work done today too!
Gene Robinson is living with his male partner. Some years ago he divorced himself from his wife and daughter (with their blessing) and is now in a commited relationship this other man.
Saying that this is okay because Jesus commands us to love one another is a shallow argument, IMO.
We’ll find out later this week, when the convention looks at no fewer than four resolutions related to same-sex marriages. To date, the church does not officially recognize them, but in a week the answer could be different. After endorsing Robinson, it will be hard for them to come back and say that same-sex marriages are invalid.
Well, Bishop-elect Robinson is engaged in an homosexual relationship - it is an “active act/thought/choice” (not that his desire is a choice, but his actions are). To clarify my analogy, I would approve of a Bishop who struggled with Greed. I would not approve of one who embraced it.
Work? Bah! Work is for people who need money! You need no money to post here;)
Do you think they would be married if it were possible to be so in this country? I mean, it’s one thing to have casual sex with someone, but it’s entirely another thing to be in a committed relationship that is marriage if it can be legally recognized as such but is for all other purposes a union of two people.
I would guess that yes, if the option were available, he would marry his current partner. I would not be surprised if they have already been through some type of marriage or civil-union type ceremony, although I don’t know for sure. From all descriptions it is a long-term, committed relationship. (Of course, you can never tell – his first marriage may have been descibed as such at one time also). But it is not a casual sex thing.
the song keeps going through my mind
and heres to you, Mr. Robinson, Jesus loves you more than you will know
wo wo wo
Guess there is such a thing as a gay gene after all.
Um… no, because they don’t.
News item.
Kind of vague on the specifics.
This is getting more ugly.
CNN is reporting that the final vote on Gene Robinson’s nomination by the House of Bishops - scheduled for this afternoon - has been postponed due to allegations of inappropriate conduct:
There is also some spurious talk about a gay support website that he founded years ago containing links to sites with erotic images.
I just wanted to say these things:
– I am pretty dubious about these accusations. The timing seems pretty convenient, if you ask me.
– The website thing is ridiculous; Robinson hasn’t had much to do with the site in quite some time, according to CNN.
There’s no winner here. If the accusations are true (a big IF), it reflects poorly on the church and reinforces negative stereotypes about both gays and clergy.
If the accusation is false, it has tarnished the reputation of a man of faith and integrity, hurt his family and friends, and unjustly delayed his confirmation. In addition, it will hurt the cause of those who fought the confirmation because it may be seen as a last-ditch effort by those who would stop at nothing to stop it.
Maybe I’m being overly dramatic. I hope so. Poly, and others, what do you think about this development?
If I were a little less cynical, I might believe the “If” is possible. As it is I’m think this is an accurate guess.