LosAdri:
This is not correct. The “camp” that is meant to be kept out of regarding the laws of menstrual impurity is the Holy Temple/Tabernacle, not general society.
In the Church I attend he would never qualify as a bishop. Not only would the homesexuality be against him, but his divorce would be against him also. As stated below a bishop is to be the husband of one wife, not the ex-husband and lover of another man.
1 Timothy 3:1-7
1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
That passage is an injunction against polygamy not homosexuality. Robinson has only one spouse.
Many churches have erroneous and prejudiced interpretations of scripture. They make the mistake of thinking that only their narrow little interpretation (and usually not even theirs but the interpretation dictated to them by some idiot preacher) is the correct one. It doesn’t matter what somebody else thinks the Bible says. The Episcopalian Church is under no obligation to adhere to those interpretations.
I’m getting really tired of arguing about this. Why can’t people just grow up and grow the fuck out of these childish and stupid attitudes. The world is not going to end because of a gay bishop. Christianity would not be well served by an exclusive clergy of backwards, bigoted assholes. This anti-gay stuff is just as stupid as racism. Why can’t people see that?
Diogenes the Cynic
I’m getting really tired of arguing about this. Why can’t people just grow up and grow the fuck out of these childish and stupid attitudes.
It seems to me you’re putting the cart before the horse. Get rid of the childish and stupid religion and the attitudes will follow.
Unlike most of OT law, condemnation of homosexuality continues throughout the NT. If you want to throw that out too, you’re throwing out any claim that the Bible is divinely inspired or whatever, which a lot of people are very unhappy to do.
This is a very common question, by the way, and I’m surprised that some of the other people didn’t answer it for they knew the answer. Trying to oversimplify issues won’t help anybody.
Let’s just say I believe that Robinson has a “spouse”. Even if he does, he is divorced, which rules out:
.
Original Word = aàmemptov
Transliterated Word = Amemptos
Parts of Speech = Adjective
Definition
blameless, deserving no censure, free from fault or defect
Now when the Pharisees tried to get Jesus to choose between the plans made for divorce, the Hillel, (which was a liberal) and Shammai, (which was conservative a position) Jesus told them what God’s plans were, by saying, “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder”
Also, Jesus said that whoever divorces there wife, except under the circumstances of fornication, and that person marries someone else, commits adultry.
So if we are saying that Robinson is married I guess he has commited adultry, and this too would rule out the blameless thing.
Also, wife, does not mean spouse.
Original Word= gunh
Transliterated Word = Gune
Parts of Speech = Noun Feminine
Definition
a woman of any age, whether a virgin, or married, or a widow
a wife
of a betrothed woman
Being that Robinson’s spouse is not a woman, this makes his eligibility for bishop, void.
Let’s not listen to what “some idiot preacher” has to say. What is the interpretation of that in the liberal Episcopalian Church?
Is there another way to interpret it?
Once again, this is a narrow-minded denominational position not a universal Christian. one. Divorce is not a sin in the Episcopalian Church.
Now when the Pharisees tried to get Jesus to choose between the plans made for divorce, the Hillel, (which was a liberal) and Shammai, (which was conservative a position) Jesus told them what God’s plans were, by saying, “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder”
Also, Jesus said that whoever divorces there wife, except under the circumstances of fornication, and that person marries someone else, commits adultry.
So if we are saying that Robinson is married I guess he has commited adultry, and this too would rule out the blameless thing.**
[/quote]
Nope, Robinson was married. His wife and his Church have released him from those vows. They are no longer binding. There is no sin. Your personal interpretation of the Bible has no relevance here.
Also Jesus was talking about a specific practice of men abandoning wives for new ones for selfish reasons. It was different culture in which a divorced woman suffered great social consequences. The standards of that culture are no longer relevant in that culture. The practical consequences of divorce are different.
Also, wife, does not mean spouse.
Original Word= gunh
Transliterated Word = Gune
Parts of Speech = Noun Feminine
Definition
a woman of any age, whether a virgin, or married, or a widow
a wife
of a betrothed woman
Being that Robinson’s spouse is not a woman, this makes his eligibility for bishop, void.**
[/quote]
It was an injunction against polygamy not homosexuality. Anyway it doesn’t say a guy can’t have a boyfriend, only that he can’t have more than one wife. Robinson doesn’t have any wives so he’s extra safe on that count.
To interpret what?
I can detail all the interpretations. I can show you how the anti-gay passages that are so important to you are either mistranslated or misunderstood or both (and why is it that fundies are so fucking OBSESSED with that one perceived sin among all others? Why don’t they get as upset about a president who bears false witness in order to start illegal wars and kill people?). I can cut and paste formal Episcopalian statements on these issues but what purpose would it serve. They interpret it differently than you do. Get over it. They have every right to interpret it differently than you do. If they want to interpret the Bible to say that Jesus was an alien from Pluto, that’s their fucking business and that interpretation is just as legitimate as yours is.
It’s not your church so why do you care? How is it any of your business who another Church wants in their leadership?
Once again, this is a narrow-minded denominational position not a universal Christian. one. Divorce is not a sin in the Episcopalian Church.
Nope, Robinson was married. His wife and his Church have released him from those vows. They are no longer binding. There is no sin. Your personal interpretation of the Bible has no relevance here.
Also Jesus was talking about a specific practice of men abandoning wives for new ones for selfish reasons. It was different culture in which a divorced woman suffered great social consequences. The standards of that culture are no longer relevant in that culture. The practical consequences of divorce are different.
Also, wife, does not mean spouse.
Original Word= gunh
Transliterated Word = Gune
Parts of Speech = Noun Feminine
Definition
a woman of any age, whether a virgin, or married, or a widow
a wife
of a betrothed woman
Being that Robinson’s spouse is not a woman, this makes his eligibility for bishop, void.**
[/quote]
It was an injunction against polygamy not homosexuality. Anyway it doesn’t say a guy can’t have a boyfriend, only that he can’t have more than one wife. Robinson doesn’t have any wives so he’s extra safe on that count.
To interpret what?
I can detail all the interpretations. I can show you how the anti-gay passages that are so important to you are either mistranslated or misunderstood or both (and why is it that fundies are so fucking OBSESSED with that one perceived sin among all others? Why don’t they get as upset about a president who bears false witness in order to start illegal wars and kill people?). I can cut and paste formal Episcopalian statements on these issues but what purpose would it serve. They interpret it differently than you do. Get over it. They have every right to interpret it differently than you do. If they want to interpret the Bible to say that Jesus was an alien from Pluto, that’s their fucking business and that interpretation is just as legitimate as yours is.
It’s not your church so why do you care? How is it any of your business who another Church wants in their leadership?
Well, I dunno about how to translate 1.Timothy, but I do know one thing- it contains the words of a mortal man, not the Word of Jesus. Show me where in the Gospels that Jesus condemned being gay.
There are gay parishioners, there are gay sinners, there are gay ministers- so why not a gay Bishop?
The word used in this passage is “toveh”, which refers to ritual impurities assossiated with idol worshipping.
**
Ah, but when it was written it didn’t. John Boswell in his book “Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality” argues
He further adds,
Personally, I take the conservative line here. I think what the bible says is pretty straightforward and not difficult to understand. As I see it, ordaining a homosexual bishop contravenes biblical instruction
There. Said it. However, this thread is not about what j_sum1 thinks. I’m just laying my cards on the table. Call me a homophobe if you must (although I am far from phobic - afraid).
One thing that appears to be overlooked by all on this matter is the violation done to the members of the episcopalian church. Do they not have the right to hold their own views, to interpret the bible the way that makes sense to them, to hold to their traditions? The leadership instituting so great a constitutional change does a disservice to the members of the church. Especially since it is contrary to the wishes of the majority of parishoners. Robinson is undoubtedly entitled to his beliefs too. Let him begin his own *“Reformed Episcopal Church” *(or some such thing) with all those who hold the same opinion as him. To hijack the church with his own beliefs and force large numbers of people to be allied to his beliefs (whether or not they adopt them), that is an injustice.
Leaving aside the issue of the rights and wrongs of homosexuality, the leaders of the Episcopal church have not done right by the people in the church.
Isn’t this exactly the same shoving-my-opinion-down-your-throat-whether-you-like-it-or-not-and-insist-that-you-enjoy-my-kind-of-church thing that fundamentalisis so often get accused of?
The majority of memebers supported Robinson’s election.
Also, one of the purposes of church leadership is to tell the laity when they’re wrong.
Pull up a chair; I’m sermonizing again.
Let’s start with how the Episcopal Church selects bishops. Contrary to the procedures in England, where bishops are named by the government, in the Catholic Church, where he is named by the Pope, or in some independent churches, where a preacher decides to call himself a bishop, we elect our bishops, who are then ordained as church leaders in the Apostolic Succession.
The Diocese of New Hampshire, the organization of the Episcopal churches in that state under a bishop, chose Gene Robinson to be its “bishop coadjutor” – assistant bishop to the soon-to-retire bishop, with the right to succeed him. There were three other excellent candidates, over whom he was elected on a second ballot. At least one ordained church leader in that diocese said that ten years ago, he would have been opposed to such a move, but having seen Gene Robinson’s life and ministry over the past decade, he felt that he would be the best man for the job.
Because our bishops collegially govern the church between General Conventions, it doesn’t stop with a diocese’s choice. Ordinarily the election of a new bishop is transmitted, by the Presiding Bishop’s office, to the other bishops and their standing committees, and must be approved by a majority of them to be confirmed in office. But when an election occurs within 90 or 120 days of a General Convention (two rules give separate numbers here), it is instead brought before that body, and must win majorities: (a) in the House of Bishops, (b) among the clergy members of the House of Delegates, and © among the lay members of the House of Delegates. If it fails of ratification in any one of these three categories, the diocese must choose a new bishop.
Clergy and lay members of the House of Delegates are elected by their diocesan conventions, which in turn are elected by the members of the local parishes.
A majority of bishops, a majority of clergy delegates, and a majority of lay delegates did indeed ratify Bishop Robinson as the Bishop Coadjutor-Elect of New Hampshire.
Obviously, “the majority of parishioners” did not object, or are totally incompetent at choosing people to express their views. Also, be it noted that bishops are to vote their consciences, not merely be voices for their dioceses. They are chosen as leaders and teachers, not as figurehead spokespersons for their people.
J_sum said:
To the contrary, sir: our understanding of the Bible is that it does not function as a rulebook for playing the game of Christianity, but as a guide to living out a moral life characterized by love of God and neighbor, expressed in standing for justice and mercy, and the respect of every human being as a child of God equal to oneself, and not a sinful person to be judged by the self-righteous.
What the Bible says is very straightforward and easy to understand. It does not say one word about whether a bishop can be a gay man in a committed marriagelike relationship with another man. It does say that we are to judge as we would be judged, and Gene Robinson, if one accepts the idea that he is living out the ideals of marriage as a gay man is able, meets fully the qualifications for a bishop.
That another person should choose to judge him on the basis of what his personal understanding of morality is, himself not being gay nor attempting any empathy towards what a gay person’s choices in life may be, is contrary to how we understand the Bible.
First, it is the (Protestant) Episcopal Church (in the United States of America) – the parenthetical phrases being the formal legal name. “Episcopalian” is an adjective describing how such a church operates, and by extension a noun referring to a member of that church.
Second, as outlined above, they did have a voice, and expressed it. They are now supposed to be bound by the will of the majority as expressed in votes. When the Dioceses of Pittsburgh and Fort Worth chose bishops who ignored the canons of the church regarding women clergy, and they were ratified in their positions, the rest of us who held the opposing view accepted their choice. I see absolutely no difference in this, and am frankly insulted by people claiming it is grounds for schism. To me it’s a fine case of “it’s OK when we do it, but not OK when you do.”
First, Gene Robinson did not make himself a bishop. He was chosen as bishop by majorities both in his own diocese and the national church, and will in the near future undertake the vows which a bishop makes to be a leader and teacher in our church. In no way is he requiring anything of any person as regards beliefs than that he was duly chosen according to canon law to be a bishop of our church. There is, in fact, a “Reformed Episcopal Church” and has been since something like 1870.
This is highly debatable. They have done what they were elected to do – both those who voted for Gene Robinson and those who voted against. IMHO, it is the schismatics who will not agree to abide by the laws of the church and the vows they took to stand by them.
This is what Gene Robinson will be promising, and below are the vows which every Episcopalian should have renewed within the past few months, at a service of Holy Baptism or at the Great Vigil of Easter:
With some exceptions, what I’ve seen from the schismatics is that their insistence on the evilness of gay sex justifies their breaking the first, fourth, and fifth of those vows. And IMHO it’s time somebody called them on that.
You are undoubtedly more knowledgable on the specifics here Poly. And it is also clear that we stand on opposite sides on both the moral issue and also in how the bible should be interpreted and applied.
I feel for the thousands of parishoners (and I heard that at it is a majority - sorry if that’s wrong) who suddenly find that the church they have been a part of for a long time now adopts a different values set. They are in an uncomfortable position of having to either:
- change their belief. (Not fair if it goes against their inner convictions)
- ally themselves to something they do not believe in. (And most honest people would be uncomfortable with that kind of duplicity)
- protest and try to force a reversal of decision (As if that was ever going to work. The horse is no longer in the barn)
or - leave and find somewhere else to worship.
Option four is probably the best for many but it smacks of factionism, and is never going to be comfortable. There is likely to be more than a few hurt people in this one.
I’m going to take issue with you on one matter Poly; that the people are incompetent to choose people to represent them. (Or do I infer that you are completely comfortable with all the actions of George Dubbya because he was elected by a majority.)
One of the pitfalls of democracy is that we do get to choose people as decision makers for us, but in doing so we risk them making decisions in some matters that differ from what we would have chosen. The selected representatives are probably serving their people very well on other matters.
To reiterate my point lest it get lost in the detail; I feel for the people who have been forced into a difficult position over what they regard as a matter of conscience.
I’m aware that I have contributed to a significant deviation from the OP. Apologies. FriarTed has given the most concise answer to the original question which, as I recall, related to why some parts of OT law are adopted by some christains and some aren’t. It appears that there is significant difference of opinion on that one.
Poly, and the schismatics would view accepting the election as breaking the first & second of those vows & so it goes…
What other US Anglican bodies are there which are in the Anglican Communion? I know of the Reformed Episcopal Church (conservative Calvinist, even containing Christian Reconstructionists Rev. Ray Sutton & Gary North) and the Charismatic Episcopal Church. Is the Anglican American Mission (if I have the name correct) also a distinct church body?
First, j_sum, let me say that I agree wholeheartedly with your core (bolded) thought. However, I do not see that as giving license for them to demand that others who do not agree accede to their scruples or they will take their ball and go home. On my diocese’s MB, I’m hearing exactly that – that we as a diocese either renounce support of the decision of the church, or people will pack up and leave.
Friar Ted, while the Anglican Communon is not a monolithic entity, it does have actual organization, with membership. And it’s based on the Orthodox one church per nation formula (India bein an exception for historic reasons; it’s geographically divided). And the American member of the Anglican communion is the Episcopal Church. The splinter groups are not members of it; with one exception, they’re not in communion with any other other Anglican churches.
In addition to the Reformed Episcopal Church, there are about half a dozen 25-year-old splinter groups, which I might be able to chase down the names of. The only significant one (in size and recognition) is the Anglican Mission in America. It operates out of Pweley Island, SC, where its bishop lives and has his parish, and his consecration as bishop was done by the Archbishop of Singapore and the Bishop of Rwanda, whose churches recognize it as a valid Anglican church. AFAIK there is no independent “Charismatic Episcopal Church” as a denomination – there are a fairly large number of parishes with charismatic worship style, most of them belonging to an amorphous Anglican Renewal Movement. Barb and I have attended a couple and like them. The American Anglican Council, at least until its October meeting in Waco, is an organization of conservative parishes within the Episcopal Church, dedicated to “working for the restoration of orthodox traditional Anglican faith and discipline.”
yeah, I went to the sites AFTER posting d’oh! & found they aren’t in the worldwide Anglican Communion. I thought the REC was, but they aren’t. Btw, they are uniting with the Anglican Province in America (different I think than the Anglican Mission).
There is indeed a Charismatic Episcopal Church, btw, apart from the charishmatic parishes within the Episcopal Church. Locally, the Episcopal parish had been about half charismatic till that particular pastor left, then those who were more Episcopal stayed on while those more charismatic went on to the other local charismatic churches (including my AoG).