Regrettably, I do not see any other way in which may establish day-to-day morality. It is all well and good to say that we must base our conduct on an external, Godly source like the Bible, but the Bible means nothing except when interpreted and enforced by man. No matter which way we use it, it is destined to become as flawed, imperfect, and prejudiced as man himself.
Um Yeah
How utterly sad.
“All this I have spoken while still with you. But the Book, the Holy Bible, which the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.” — Imposter
“All this I have spoken while still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.” — Jesus
Just a couple of comments. From what I’ve heard, Outright added the links in question after Fr. Robinson had stopped being involved with the organization. Let me indulge in a parallel. Back when I was in college, I was president of the German Club and part of a group of students who revitalized it. After I left college,
I moved to the other side of the country where I lived for several years. When I returned, I heard that the German Club had become a hotbed of white supremacists and eventually been banned. Does this mean that, by the logic which calls Fr. Robinson a pornographer, I’m a white supremacist?
Concerning “inappropriate touching”, when I taught Sunday School, the Sunday School teachers were warned against hugging kids because of concerns about allegations of “inappropriate touching”; I’ve also had male priests who were reluctant to be alone with me, a single woman, because of concerns about what accusations could be made. All of the adults in these situations are aware that these are extreme precautions, but the precaution required such slight effort compared to the harm which can be done that it seems worthwhile. Also what’s in appropriate? A handshake? A hug? A pat on the shoulder? I have told two people they are never to hug me, or, indeed, lay a hand on me ever. One, now dead, refused to respect those limits, even after I did all I could to stay out of arms reach. The other has a little more sense. I don’t think the first fellow was a predator, and I certainly don’t think he was going to throw me down on the floor and rape me, but I could also say that he repeatedly “put his hands on me inappropriately and touched me” even after I told him not to.
I’m torn and sceptical. You see, my own diocese is a very conservative one, and I have heard the spokeswoman for the Diocese, a minister who I like and have respected, on the morning news on the drive to work denouncing homosexuality. Ironically, this was followed by a news story about J. Lo’s latest romance!
There are people who hate homosexuals with a vitriol which astonishes and appalls me. A sin which Christ never mentioned has been called one of the 10 worst. I will continue to pray for my church and for my gay and bisexual brothers and sisters “that we all may be one.” I will also work and speak as God commands me.
CJ
I almost started a Pit thread about this today, but I’m more concerned with the outcome of this development than I am about starting a rant that will polarize people further.
My mother is an Episcopalian priest and also a member of the Search Committee in New Hampshire that recommended Canon Robinson’s nomination. She is outraged at the last-minute accusations that have been leveled against someone she considers a true man of God, one whose sexuality is incidental to(though certainly a part of) his devotion to the Church. I have personally met Canon Robinson on several occasions, and have always come away with the feeling of peace and honesty and dedication to the well-being of all people that is not common enough among clergy today.
I am praying for him, and for the people of New Hampshire who chose him as their spiritual leader.
Man is imperfect and flawed but not the word itself. We may make mistakes when interpreting it but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t truth.
I admit that much of what I am saying is do to my belief and faith in the accuracy and reliability of the bible. I know it seems foolish to many to believe so. But I guess that’s part of what faith is to me.
II Tim 3:16
“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;”
-
Bringing up last-minute accusations like this is BS. Those who are doing so, when there has already been plenty of time to raise questions about Canon Robinson in the appropriate manner, should be ashamed of themselves. This is not Christian conduct.
-
Concluding that the blessing of gay unions is the right and appropriate thing to do can be read by its opponents as yielding to the forces of popular culture, if they so wish. But they might do well to think about it this way: that the increasing acceptance of gays in Western countries has raised awareness of the reality of the nature of homosexuality to the point where the churches must deal honestly and forthrightly with the questions raised by the reality that homosexual attraction, among most that experience it, is not a transitory or superficial thing, but as deeply embedded as heterosexual attraction is for those of us who are wired in that manner.
-
I believe the time is overdue for the Episcopal Church to recognize and bless unions between gay couples choosing to commit their lives to one another. Hopefully, the resolution that Poly linked to in the OP regarding this will pass. Hopefully it will not be long before gays can be married in any Episcopal church, but starting off with allowing each diocese to choose their own policy on this is probably the best thing for now.
-
I don’t think it’s appropriate to go directly from regarding homosexuality as a sin to installing openly gay bishops. The Church is a family, and transitions are better than wrenching changes. After gay unions have been acknowledged by the Church for some years, and the people of the Church have had a chance to accept gays as brothers and sisters in Christ, then it will be the appropriate time to ordain gays as priests and install them as bishops.
But it’s unreasonable to tell the laity one day that homosexuality is wrong, and ask them the next to accept a gay bishop. I think the supporters of Canon Robinson are asking for too much, too quickly, and putting their own desires ahead of the well-being of the Church.
We (the Episcopal Church) have had openly gay members for well over 20 years, and openly gay priests for at least 16 years – that was the date of the first ordination of a man who had come out before being ordained, and he served his diaconate under an openly gay priest who’d come out after his ordination. Various parishes have been more or less accepting of gay people, as was their wont. But it’s not a radical change. (BTW, a few years ago the church as a whole elected to the Executive Council, which advises the Presiding Bishop between General Conventions and has responsibility for national church appointments, a deeply spiritual man named Louie Crew, who has been “out” and a strong activist for about 30 years now. This event is the one deemed newsworthy by the media in their great wisdom, not a sea-change for us.)
In addition, look at Anna Lucretia’s post. From everything I’ve read, the Diocese of New Hampshire was not out to “make a statement about accepting gay people,” but to choose the best possible candidate for their new bishop, and found him in their dean, who happened to be a partnered gay man. What sticks with me is the comment made by one of the oldest and most respected priests in that diocese, that ten years ago he would have opposed the nomination on moral grounds, but knowing and working with Gene Robinson and seeing him do his ministry had changed his mind.
Color me cynical. I was excited about the ordination. The accusations made me roll my eyes and, frankly, assume they are complete fabrications.
Because a legitimate gripe would have been advanced before now, before the whole country would have known anything about the matter, before there was this much potential for negative publicity for Canon Robinson.
Allow someone to make it to the national stage and then lob your accusations? That’s vindictive, and not at all for the benefit of the church as a whole.
Julie
True, but hasn’t the official stance of the Episcopal Church this whole time been that homosexual relations were still regarded as sinful? If that’s the case, the fact that such ordinations were occurring doesn’t change what the official stance of the Church has been, nor the ‘under the table’ character of the ordinations of openly gay priests.
Poly, you’ve been involved with the Episcopal church longer than I have, so I am relying on your account. I know that there have been gay preists in the church, almost certainly more than we even know about. I’ll assume that not all of them were celibate and at least some were open about being in gay relationships, although I do not know that for sure. I am inferring that from your post.
But now we are talking about the national convention confirming a Bishop of the church. This is a tectonic shift in church policy, a radical change and not the small matter you imply. You know that at the last Lambeth Conference in 1998 the Anglican Community agreed that homosexual activity is “incompatible with Scripture.” By approving this nomination, the national convention puts itself directly at odds with the Worldwide Anglican Communion.
I know that the root of this is the disagreement over whether or not homosexual sex is sin. I don’t think I can overestimate the dismay of many at seeing the convention endorse activity that:
– church tradition has declared sinful (across denominations, for centuries, until this one)
– Scripture condemns
– Anglicanism has specifically rejected in recent years
A rector of one of the largest churches in our diocese was interviewed on the local news here last night. He said that something will have to happen in the near future within the ECUSA – that orthodox Episcopalians will not be able to remain in union with those who call sin, acceptable. (His exact words were, “call evil good and good, evil.”) This wasn’t a small country mission – he represents the third largest and fastest-growing parish in the Tennessee diocese.
What I’m saying is that I’ve seen interviews with Dean Robinson and others that downplay the impact this will have in the church. “They threatened to leave over the ordination of women, and it didn’t happen, so I think a split is unlikely this time.” Unfortunately, I think they are mistaken and gravely underestimate the dismay of the conservatives at this decision. It will take some kind of very meaningful reaching out to them to keep them in the fold (in my opinion).
…and now let’s hear the obligatory, “Don’t let the door slam you in the ass on the way out.” (not from you, Poly, but I expect someone to express that thought)
I’ll say it.
Just to add some depth to my previous post, I wanted to add that one of the things that upsets me, personally, about this is the implication that the Search Committee was not thorough in their background checks of all the candidates, ESPECIALLY Gene. I witnessed firsthand (via my mother) the process that they went through, and I promise you, VERY few people could have gotten through the process without having questionable things come up. Throughout the process he was candid, honest, and cooperative.
At the time I found it a bit sad that they had to be extra-vigilant and in-depth with Canon Robinson, but I (and they) understood that his sexuality would be a touchstone for allegations and accusations - as it indeed has.
I hold out the naive hope that the day will come when sexuality is considered both personal and irrelevant. There are horrible perverted people of every sexual persuasion - but wonderful ones (like Canon Robinson) who transcend their preferences and live loving, decent lives, contributing to society and “paying their dues” make up the vast majority of people.
Upon preview, I should clarify my “transcending preferences” comment - that should NOT be taken as an endictment of anyones sexuality. I simply believe that who I am attracted to, though fundamental to my personality, should not have any bearing on how I am perceived by the rest of society. As a straight female, that’s fairly easy for me to say - but I hope that ALL of our brethren are accorded the same liberty someday soon.
In a Christian church, I don’t like the idea of anyone saying “don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out.”
There’s plenty of nonsense going on here, more than enough to go around. There’s liberals who are inappropriately downplaying the seriousness of the change involved in elevating Dean Robinson to the level of bishop. There are conservatives who are going the opposite direction, artificially elevating the seriousness of this issue by threatening schism over it. (And all the while pointing at the liberals, saying, “they made us do it.” Blech.) And there are those on both sides, and on the sidelines, who are expressing glee over this falling-out in the body of Christ. Just wonderful.
since Guin said that these accusations remind her or Whitewater & Monicagate, I’ll see her & raise her an Anita Hill G
now how’s THAT for a hijack!
Seriously, as much as I oppose the ordination & promotion of practicing gays in the Christian clergy, I think these last-minute accusations stink to high heaven. Gene Robinson’s election as Bishop should be based on his qualifications & the consensus the
Episcopal Church comes to regarding the morality of homosexual activity. Alas, the accusations do need to be investigated but I hope they are quickly dealt with so the substantial issues can be addressed.
RE the possibility of schism- if some Episcopalian Christian parents take seriously the traditional interpretation of Romans 1 & I Cor 6 & view gay sex as sinful, and if the Church which has maintained that view then reverses itself, and if those Christians are trying to raise their children with the traditional view, what choice do they have?
Also, what are the options in the PEC if one believes one’s bishop to be invalid? For clergy & laity? Could a lay person who objects to a bishop on grounds of doctrine or practice rerquest that another bishop officiate at a child’s Confirrmation?
Right with ya, FT. Those are some the questions that the church will have to be answer in the upcoming months, so hope someone is thinking ahead.
I also want to repeat what I said on the first page of this thread in case anyone missed it – this accusation of impropriety smells mighty bad to me too. I hope the investigation can be completed quickly and thoroughly.
After reading the released bits of the email I really got the feeling of that Simpsons’ episode where Marge pats Ralph on the shoulder and Ralph screams and says “She touched my special area!”
The clearest statement of his allegation is this:
“When I first encountered Gene at a … convocation a couple of years ago he put his hands on me inappropriately every time I engaged him in conversation. NO GAY MAN HAS EVER BEHAVED TOWARDS ME THIS WAY [capitals in original] – and I have had over 25 years of associations with gay male colleagues in the Boston, New York, Los Angeles, and San Diego show business communities.”
What exactly is he suggesting Robinson did in the midst of a huge public gathering, let alone one swarming with Robinson’s colleagues? Without more specific description of what went on, it’s pretty hard to see whether or not this has merit even if it did happen (what does this guy consider an “appropriate boundary?”). No gay man has ever put his hands on this person: but have straight men? Is all of this over something as simple as a hug or putting an arm around someone? Putting both hands on the man’s shoulder when listening to him? At the very worst, it still certainly doesn’t sound like a very substantial allegation: it seems to rely more on implication that the alleged behavior reveals some deeper character flaw than the behavior itself.
What makes it even more ridiculous is that this man was an adult when it allegedly happened. When I first heard of the accusation, I thought someone was making charges of the priest-pedophile type against Robinson. The knowledge that this was not only two adults, but done at a public gathering where anything truly “inappropriate” was unlikely, causes me to lean toward dismissing the allegation even if what he’s saying truly did happen. I can’t see an Episcopal official, even a minor one, especially one who knew that his open homosexuality would make certain usually harmless gestures take on false significance, groping another man in public.
Churches change their positions on significant issues periodically over time. If the Catholic Church decided it was OK for priests to marry, and for married laity to become priests, should traditionalists break away and form a new church? Or if the Southern Baptists looked at the Bible and realized it said wine was really OK, should the pro-teetotaling wing break off?
IMHO, it depends on how central one believes a particular bit of doctrine is to one’s church’s theology.
Here, it’s hard to see how the sun and the moon of Episcopal belief revolve around how the church regards homosexuality. Regardless of what’s right in the eyes of God, it’s closer to the periphery than the center of what the faith is all about. (Other than the idea of men doing that with other men - how can we allow thoughts about that to sully the Church of Good Taste? ;))
The problem with talking about “the traditional interpretation of Romans 1 & I Cor 6” is, as others here have discussed, that the Scriptures say lots of things, some of which contradict other Scriptures, some of which contradict science or common sense, and some of which contradict humanity’s growing sense of the demands of social justice. We don’t stone people to death; we don’t own slaves; we (in most denominations, including the Episcopal Church) don’t insist that women keep quiet in church, but rather recognize the legitimacy of their calling to the ministry.
When a church comes to the point where it realizes it has long been wrong over some such matter, what are its members called to do? Perhaps they are called to tarry awhile and see what the fruits of such a change are, before leaving or issuing threats of schism. As Paul reminds us, the fruits of the Spirit are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Maybe the potential schismatics should attempt to be the bearers of such fruits while they wait to see whether Church recognition of gay unions produces these fruits as well.
Yeah, I know. ‘Fruits’. Now no one else has to point it out.
How much of that is taken out of context? Can you take one verse from one part of scripture and another from a different part in the bible and create a discrepancy? Yes. But keep them in their context and they do not contradict themselves. When Jesus says to pluck out your eye if it causes you to sin, it’s not meant to be taken literally. It’s an exaggeration used to illustrate a point. It’s also important to look at cultural influences of that period.