I'm Proud of My Church

Great Debates
161

Well, no, Skammer, the majority of the Bishops, and of the lay and clergy Delegates as well, including most of those who will gather in the AAC meeting, have been quite openly and publicly living with women (men for the women delegates) with whom it’s common knowledge they have sexual relations, in some cases having had children by them! The reason why we permit this shocking state of affairs to continue is, of course, an institution called marriage.

But, you say, that’s different. Marriage is an institution created by God… If they just set up housekeeping without marrying, or slept around ad libido, we’d raise an issue there too.

Well, OK, we say. But by the laws of the state of New Hampshire and of the Episcopal Church (up until this week) they cannot marry in a way recognized by civil or canon law. Their commitment to each other is at least as sincere as any random set of marriage vows between a couple.

But marriage is between a man and a woman, you respond. And we say, yeah, usually, but who limited it to that? Even God’s few references to marriage are notable for having no “only” in them.

Anyway, you rejoin, he’s committing sex acts that are forbidden in Scripture. And we refer you to the 538 threads that have discussed this over the past few years.

Bottom line is, the “doctrine” that he is in violation of is not one that the church has adopted or recognized officially, but rather the interpretation of marriage and sexuality that is so structured as to make it impossible for a gay person to express love sexually under any circumstances. If we were to formalize it, we ought to have the honesty to make it Canon-22.

What I gather Edlyn is saying is this: Gene Robinson is either a “notorious and open evil liver” who should be excommunicated, not made bishop; or else he is a man living in marital fidelity in much the same way as any other married clergyman, albeit thanks to our civic and ecclesial unwillingness to recognize their commitment, it is a marriage only in the sense of the commitment they feel to each other. (Which, thank God, the church has finally seen fit to allow the blessing of where priests and bishops grasp the idea and have no scruples against it.) And if he is the latter, then there is no ground for objecting to his consecration.

Now, I know that I have set you up as a strawman above, and it is not my intent to demean your position; I merely wanted to condense the gay-sex-and-marriage arguments down to a few paragraphs rather than a series of posts rehashing ground already covered numerous times. I will be honored if you will correct any misapprehensions I have on the opposed-to-gay-marriage-and-gays-in-leadership stance; I’m certain I did not do it justice.

Eggerhaus, let me apologize for the typoes in my first paragraph addressed to you last night.

162

:smiley:

That clears things up, then. Thanks.
Now there’s this guy Tevye who has some thoughts about the importance of tradition…:slight_smile:

163

Poly, you’ve done a great job illustrating why I don’t usually get into these debates – we inevitably end up going in circles, and repeating the same arguments over and over again. Your post should be required reading for anyone thinking about starting a new thread on the topic – maybe they’d think twice.

I know you intentionally simplified the arguments on both sides, but I think you short-changed the scriptural support for marriage being between a man and a woman: from Eve being created for Adam and through all the marriages mentioned in the bible (quite a few), without a counter-example to man+woman provided.

Surely you see the false dichotomy here. There is plenty of ground between complete fidelity to the marital ideal and notorious evil worthy of excommunication. I don’t believe he is a man living in marital fidelity (and not just because of the inconvenient fact that legal gay marriage is not available); niether do I believe he is evil or should be cast out of the church.

As an example consider a hypothetical well-respected and honored clergyman, who is married (to a woman) but discovered to be having an affair and unwilling to give up his relationship to the other woman (he “loves” her). His affair would not meet with the approval of most people (and rightly so). He would likely be removed from a position of authority in the church. He would not be excommunicated nor would I consider him a “notorious evil liver,” but someone who has not come to terms with his sin. I’m not using this illustration to say homosexuality is analogous to adultery; I’m just trying to show that Edlyn’s argument (at least your interpretation of it) is unsound.

164

Yes, but imagine instead that this man isn’t married in the first place (which Bishop Robinson (I love typing that!) is not) and is forbidden by the Church and the law to marry any woman. What are his choices? Could you stay away from women for the rest of your life because the Church says you must? Would you consider it right or proper for the Church to defrock you if you were to have a relationship with the subject of your love in contravention to their teachings?

I find it so very hard to understand a mindset that would remove all chance of romantic love from a person’s life because of the gender of the person he or she is irrevocably set to be interested in. I want to believe you’re nice people who merely don’t get it, but it’s difficult when you strip away all the polite words and get down to what the attitude really means for people like me.

165

Even further, jayjay:

Would you consider it right or proper if the Church defrocked you for falling in love, while being perfectly OK with many other priests falling in love and forming commitments?

166

The way I look at it is somewhat idealistic, but marriage is a state of mind, a willingness to make and keep a commitment for life. (And let’s not get into the reasons why people in general, and Mr. & Mrs. Robinson in particular, might divorce.)

What mattered, and matters, to us, and to God, is that Barb and I promised to each other “to have and to hold from this day forward, forsaking all others, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, until death do us part.” The fact that the Rev. Clyde Relyea conducted the ceremony in which we promised this according to the Discipline of the United Methodist Church, and the State of New York licensed us to have that ceremony, is secondary to the fact that that’s what we promised. If either had been unwilling, we would still have made those promises, and meant them.

I don’t find it hard to grasp that two men, e.g., Gene Robinson and Mark Arthur, might have felt the love and been willing to commit that Barb and I felt and feel, and have been living out.

Adultery is, by definition, breaking a promise, not making and keeping one. The analogy is as slippery-slope as december’s insistence that anyone who runs against GWB is aiding and comforting the enemy.

167

Correcting an unclear referent: “If either had been unwilling…” means “If either church or state had been unwilling to do their part…”

168

I avoid posting on these issues, or frankly, even reading the news accounts. But I recently ran across something that I hadn’t known, that the Bishop (allegedly) had a previous marriage which he left while the children were young. But few if any of the articles I’ve seen mention this.

Without hijacking (I hope), could Poly or someone else provide more info on the Bishop’s side of that story?

169

And the CNN story.

170

Well, then he’d be Catholic.

171

Captain Amazing:

Ouch! Yes…he would be, wouldn’t he? Well, the Pope and I have some differences, too.

While my mother may argue otherwise, being Catholic doesn’t mean you can’t be wrong. :smiley:

172

Unfortunately, people who oppose the Bishop have been spinning that as hard as they can. Yes he was married. Yes they divorced when he came out. Yes the kids were young at the time. On the flipside, no there has been no evidence he was having an affair with anyone at the time. No, he did not leave the kids or the family. Yes the divorce was amicable. Yes he and his wife shared custody and responsibility for the children. Yes they both remain on good terms today. He met his husband 2 years later, and they’ve both been together since then.

So in short: Bishop Robinson figured out he was gay, came out to his wife and family, divorced under good circumstances, continued to remain active in the kids’ lives, and in short the break-up was as painless as things like that can ever be. Please notice the fact that his daughter was with him and his husband during his confirmation hearings.

173

jayjay and Poly, I’ll repeat that I wasn’t comparing my hypothetical adulterous clergyman to Bishop-elect Robinson’s case; I was just using it as an example to refute the false dichotomy in Edlyn’s argument. I agree that adultery, which involves breaking marriage vows, is a different (and more serious, IMO) transgression. (I was going to suppose an unmarried clergyman in a (hetero-)sexual relationship, but I was afraid we wouldn’t all agree there was a problem with that:)).

174

Furt, it hasn’t gotten a whole lot of press, because it’s not quite so controversial as a Southern Baptist theology professor willing to call an Episcopal bishop an apostate who has abandoned Biblical principles. (IMHO, he’s got some reexamination of his own principles to do, when he does things like that.)

But the fact of the matter is that Bishop Robinson[sup]1[/sup] was married, apparently grew to recognize that, as a gay man, his marriage was in some ways a lie, though he did dearly love his wife and she him, and they went before the altar, cried and prayed, released each other from their marriage vows, and then took Communion together.

I don’t know how old his two daughters are. I do know that they’ve stood beside him and his partner throughout this, have expressed their love for him and their gratitude for his fatherhood, and one of them read a statement from their mother that expresses warm feelings and heartfelt support for him.

There are a lot of positions to be taken on this issue, depending on your feelings about marriage, divorce, gay unions, etc., but the canard that he “abandoned his wife” is not one that I’m willing to let go unchallenged. (And I know you didn’t say any such thing – but, you having brought up the issue, somebody will, so that statement’s preemptive.)

  1. Yeah, jayjay, it does feel good to say that!
175

** Poly **, you have always been my favorite Christian, and I shoulda knowed that you were Episcopalian when your church did this. Very good. I’m proud of your church, too, and that’s sayin’ sumthin.

176

Sigh. Yep. It’s quite complex theology. I find it hard to be dogmatic (or even confident) about many of the issues involved, and to the extent that I do have positions, mine would piss off people on all sides.

177

When God created Eve, Genesis records Him as saying, “It is not good for man to be alone.” Yet, to me, by not allowing gay people to marry people they love because such people will be of the same sex, we are expecting them to be alone. Now, me, I’m single, never married, and celibate. Still, I have no doubt that even if I went out to a certain Christian message board I used to hang out at and said, “I’ve fallen in love with a wonderful fellow and I can’t wait to marry him!”, there’d be nothing but rejoicing. If I came out (pun intended) and said, “I’ve fallen in love with a wonderful woman and can’t wait to marry her!”, I’m quite sure the reaction would be somewhat different, including from my parents! :o

In American society, I think it’s considered normal for someone in their mid-20’s to have married at least once. I’m grateful that I’m not aware of people thinking it’s not natural for me not to have done so, but I also know that that, too, has changed during my lifetime. Still, some folks would deny this most basic of human comforts and privileges to one set of people. That, to me, isn’t right.

Concerning the potential split, as HJay’s wife pointed out to me in a jubiliant phone call the other night (she was raised Episcopalian), a schism has also been threatened over the ordination of women priests and women bishops. I still hear the odd grumble about that, and I’m not entirely sure my bishop approves of women priests. The church has survived this much, and will continue to do so. “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

CJ

178

As those of you who follow news about religion know, all manner of fecal matter has hit the rotary air-circulation device since Bishop Robinson was confirmed in his new position.

But worthwhile things continue to happen.

I’m addng this post to link to a truly wonderful bit of writing by the Rt. Rev. Michael Curry, whom I’m overjoyed to have as my own diocesan bishop.

Two excerpts from Bishop Curry’s reflections, the first relating to “anti-gay Scripture passages”:

And his conclusion about Christian discipleship and how it impacts this whole issue:

179

I believe this is the answer to your other thread wherein you asked what a Christian who believes homosexuality to be a Sin is to do, Polycarp.

180

No. We’re all in the same boat Splanky…

Romans 3:23

**For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; **