First off, I went to a Baptist church for about 12 years (the first 12 of my life) with my grandmother. I can recite John 3:16 and the Lord’s Prayer and know who fought the battle of Jericho. (it was Joshua, and the walls came a tumblin’ down)
Recently, the Episcopalian laity of New Hampshire approved a gay priest for their nominee to be Bishop of New Hampshire. The day of the final vote, two allegations surface. One says that he “inapprorpiately” touched another man at some seminar. It does not say what that touching is. The second links him to an organization that he has had little to no contact with for five years. The organization, which was basically a support group for young GLBT&Q’s, has a website which once had a couple of hyperlinks to pornographic sites.
My question is more fundamental, b/c I am on Gene’s side. My question has to do with the condemnation of homosexuality. I have read the verse in Leviticus. I get the abomination thing. But a few verses later, according to that book, as a woman, when I get my period, I should be taken away from the tribe/society for 7 days. This is the same book that gives the laws of kosher, which few Christians follow. So my question is: Why do some things carry over and some things not? And also: wasn’t Jesus all about love, so why do we condemn people for love?
Thanks! (and btw: in case you think I’m going to hell, I know I know… I just dont believe in it b/c I dont believe in a place of pure evil)
I tend to think that it is a reverse justification for a pre-existing fear/dislike of homosexuals.
Meaning, it’s not that Leviticus says that it’s wrong, and so I must condemn it, but that I think it’s icky, and I must be right because the Good Book agrees with me.
As for where that original dislike comes from, it’s passed down through families like any other sort of prejudice.
As an active Episcopalian who supports Fr. Robinson’s candidacy, I won’t even try to explain why some people insist on condemning gay people (or their gayness – which would to me be like saying, “I like you OK, but I hate the fact that you’re left-handed.”)
I do, however, need to correct one misconception. The group that put up the website is in Portland, Maine, and Fr. Robinson has never had any connection to them. He helped found an independent sister group in Concord NH, to which referrals are made from the Portland group’s website. That website, directed at GLBT youth, used to have a link to the website of an information and support group for bisexuals. And the bisexual group’s website had a link to what they termed “an erotic site” – which the Portland group wasn’t aware of until the media turned it up. When they found out about it, they immediately removed the link to the bisexual group’s website, because they felt that linking to a group that links to erotica was not an appopriate ministry to their target clientele of youths.
Thank you for clarification. The NPR report and the CNN report and the NYT report were all very confusing.
The reason I am so upset about this is that the Episcopalian church was the one denomination I felt okay in. I loved the ceremonies and Episcopalians have always seemed very faithful but very open. If I ever find the Christian faith, it will be through this church or the Quakers (please, no one go into the Quakers: Christian or not thing)
Just to give an idea of the bias of Fox News, they were reporting last night that Robinson had been accused of “posting pornographic pictures on a website” which obviously a gross mischaracterization of the allegation…which is exactly their intent, of course.
I feel bad for the Shakers because they were a really neat religion, but a doomed one. Their refusal to procreate meant that they would never survive. They were pretty cool, otherwise.
to address the OP, why some things in Leviticus carry over & some don’t- the passage condemning male-male sex does not occur in a Kosher Law or a Sacrifice or a Festival passage, it occurs in the Forbidden Sex passage (Chapter 18) which also forbids incest. Also, in the New Testament, Christ is regarded as fulfilling the Priestly/Sacrificial system, the Apostles were called to end the Jewish/Gentile division- which the Kosher laws were part of, but Paul in Romans 1 & I Corinthians 6 reapplies the forbidding on gay sex (IMO & according to historic Christian tradition). Also, the Jerusalem Council, while releasing Gentile Christians from obligation to Jewish Law, does apply Noachic Law
(Acts 15:19-20) against idolatry, “fornication”, strangling animals for food & blood. “Fornication” (Greek- pornea) is a generic term for forbidden sex, which according to the traditional interpretation, includes gay sex (tho the gay-friendly view would regard it as only non-committed gay sex).
To me, the real Biblical law of human sexuality & mating is Genesis 1:27-28, 2:23-24- monogamous heterosexual marriage.
What I didn’t understand about this controversy is that the guy was a practicing homosexual as a priest without censure. Why was it OK for a priest, but not a bishop? Somewhat of a moot point since the guy was approved today as a bishop, and I’ve certainly learned not to expect logical consistency from religion, but this just seemed very strange.
The Episcopalian Church, at least certain parishes and other sections I dunno the words for, tends to be liberal and accepting of homosexuality. Also, I believe when he was ordained, he was living the life of a happy hetero (to use a slightly deregatory but oh-so-alliterative term) and had a wife. I know he has kid(s?).
What is the policy on divorced priests? I mean, I know the whole reason this church exists is because of one, but frankly didn’t this guy put the desires of his body over his marriage vows? What if he had left his wife for another woman and legally married her–would he be allowed to be a bishop?
I know his family, including his kids who must have been deeply hurt to discover that their conception was just an unnatural charade for their dad, have forgiven him and are standing by him, which is great and truly Christian, but the marriage under false pretenses and the divorce bugs me more than the being gay. A man who is gay and has lived his life honestly, I would have no problem with. I know given his age he couldn’t have lived as openly gay in his early years, but he lied to his wife in saying that he loved her and would all his life, and that’s wrong.
FTR again, I am pro gay priests and bishops in general. I don’t mean to offend anybody but I haven’t seen this issue addressed much.
Gay men can love their wives and love their children (since love certainly doesn’t require “wanting to have sex with”). It’s a perfectly reasonable possibility that the marriage wasn’t under false pretenses at all, and his homosexuality was simply something that he himself realized only later. Two of my friends had exactly the same thing happen with their fathers. Realizing you are gay is a bit of a bigger deal than realizing that you’d like to sleep with another woman.
One of the dissenting bishops who spoke after the election (sadly, I can’t remember who; they played his quote on NPR) said that it was ironic that the convention and just approved the nomination of a man who, had he been a priest in that Bishop’s diocese, would have been up on [ecclesiastical] trial.
Friar Ted has done a good job summarizing the biblical arguments for those opposed to homosexual sex, which answers the OP’s main question. As to the last question (why do we comdemn people for love) – nobody condemns anyone for love. But not everyone agrees what love is, either.
I’d like to amend my last sentence – I’m not condemning anyone for anything, including whatever sexual practices they engage in, because I have no right to do that. Gene Robinson is, I believe, a good man of integrity with a deep faith, and no more sinful than I am.
I do think he should not be Bishop, due to his beliefs about human sexuality that I find to be contrary to Scripture and church doctrine, but I emphatically to not condemn him as a human being.
To be fair to Rev Robinson, apparently as a young man he had gay feelings, struggled with them, got married & had children, later acknowledged his gayness, had an amicable divorce with his wife as they had a rite to release each other from their marriage vows & took Communion, still shared the raising of their children, and then he got together with his present companion two years later & they’ve been together 13 years. I was really quite touched when reading the story of his background in the Louisville Courier-Journal (he’s a Kentucky boy).
As a straight man who has been unable to find a mate & struggles a lot with loneliness, I can sympathise with the longing for love however it’s found, but I also believe the path he has chosen (and he did choose his actions, not his orientation) disqualifies him from Christian priestly ministry.
FriarTed, why should living in a committed homosexual relationship disqualify him from Christian priestly ministry? I realize that many believers, more traditional than I, consider homosexuality to be a sin. But why should this particular “sin” disqualify a person?
It doesn’t. The thinking is (and I emphatically do not agree with this) that, as a practicing homosexual, he has demonstrated that he has no intention to stop “sinning”. We are all sinners, etc., under Christian lore, but were are supposed to want to avoid and stop sinning.
Under this line of thought, someone who has declared that he sins and intends to keep doing so is not an appropriate religious leader.