It is incumbant on those who who allege that homosexuality is a sin to validate their conclusions, not the other way around.
It can also be argued that the scriptural model for marriage is polygamy. Can you find anything in the Bible which claims that polygamy is a sin or that a man should have only one wife (non-clergy that is)?
This is highly debatable as has been stated before.
I thiught we were talking about Christians here. Judaism forbids eating pork too. What does that have to do with anglicans?
So what? Is the church always right?
Under the authority of scripture and the Holy Spirit.
Dio, I think that’s a bit glib, to say the least.
“the authority of scripture and the Holy Spirit” is all to easy to claim, and in my younger days I was around far too many who were too quick to claim that sort of sweeping justification, usually inappropriately.
The Church has not always been right, over the centuries, but Anglicans respect long-standing tradition, and (generally) depart from it only after great care and deliberation.
Whether or not we’ve been correctly reading the handful of verses relating to homosexuality for all these eons, the fact remains that they have been long believed to condemn all homosexual contact.
As a result, the burden is fairly on those who believe that long-held belief is incorrect to make that case. While I believe that burden has been met, there is no mistaking that that’s where the burden of proof belongs.
DtC, I hear you, but I don’t want to debate whether or not the AAC view of homosexuality is correct (at least, not in this thread). They believe that the scriptural model, and historic church understanding, of human sexuality is as I’ve described. I’m interested in debating their response and actions, given that premise.
RtF, it’s funny that you posted that link to Duncan’s speech – I’m in the process of listening to the audio tapes of the AAC conference and I listened to the first half of that message during my lunch today. I’ll have to get back to you with my thoughts when I hear the rest (so far I’m only at “What will the intervention look like?”)
Poly:
First of all, I’m heartbroken to see the church divided. I have to remind myself that this is God’s church, not ours, and we cannot thwart His purposes whatever they are.
As I’ve said in other threads, I hold the traditionally orthodox view of human sexuality. I believe that this is the scriptural teaching – both in terms of the plain text and by the relationships modeled throughout the bible. I believe that Jesus endorsed the traditional view of marriage in his teachings.
I also understand and respect those who, while acknowledging the authority of scripture, have a different interpretation. I think their interpretation is faulty, but I can focus on the common ground we share. I would gladly kneel beside you, Poly, or even Gene Robinson, and share the bread and cup.
Up until last August, the ECUSA had no offical doctrine or policy on homosexuality, and so we lived in (if sometimes awkward) communion. But when the GC gave its approval so same-sex unions and a non-celibate homosexual Bishop, the church suddenly had a policy. Homosexuality had the church’s stamp of approval. Members like me (and there are huge number of us) found ourselves in a church that has officially said that this is not a sin. We cannot reconcile the actions of GC to what we read in the scripture, nor to the official statements of the Anglican Communion nor the historic faith. Forced to choose, we must reject the Convention’s actions.
Concerning the AAC, I accept their statement of faith and I stand behind their “Call to Action” petition. I believe it is necessary for conservative dioceses and parishes to work together and support one another, and to maintain connection to the Anglican Communion. If the ECUSA takes a unilateral stand in opposition to the AC, I believe the orthodox believers must realign themselves under the AC and possibly leave ECUSA behind. The AAC happens to have the organization and network in place to allow these conservative bodies to work together.
Some things coming out of the AAC have made me uncomfortable. I am dismayed when I hear individuals who are excited about a split. I am angry when I hear them disparaging the liberals within our church. Personally, I would have welcomed Frank Griswald’s oberservers to the AAC meeting if it had been up to me. But overall, IMHO, the conservative leaders have expressed appropriate humility and repentence during this time.
It upsets me that the division has not only rippled upward (to the global communion) but also downward (to individual parishes). In September, our church was set to host an event for the women of our diocese. When one of our parishoners realized that the speaker for the event was an outspoken proponent of Robinson and gay unions (from the pulpit and in the local papers), a storm erupted. Our vestry and clergy had to decide whether or not we could in good conscience let her teach at our parish (even though this was a diocesan event). I argued strongly to let her come - she was not going to be speaking about anything to do with this controversy. But I was outvoted (believe it or not I am one of the more liberal members of our vestry). People were angry, and there would have been more angry people had the vote gone the other way. That’s just one example – and our church is not nearly as divided as many others.
I also wonder - and maybe someone here can give an answer - are the folks who voted back in August surprised at the results? There were plenty of warnings from the laity and bishops that the approval of Robinson and the same-sex unions would split the church, and it seems to me that these predictions were pooh-poohed at the time. I’m wondering if those who voted with the majority were really blind to the convictions of the conservatives, or if they felt strongly enough in what they were doing that it didn’t matter.
Anyway, Poly, that’s where I’m coming from.
Like perhaps Jonathan and David? Or Ruth and Naomi? Or the Centurion and his “pais” in Capernaum?
Indeed. The Bible has lots of stuff in it, and often we just see what we want to see. Like the way that a lot of the women in positions of respect in the NT church once weren’t believed to be women.
I’m not asking this in order to be combatative, but because I’m generally interested – where in the bible is it indicated that these were sexual relationships?
I believe J & D referred to each other as “brothers.” Wouldn’t that make a sexual relationship kind of, you know, incestual? And David was married to Michel, and of course there was that incident with Uriah’s wife, so we know he liked women. That doesn’t prove he wasn’t bi, but you’ll have to supply evidence to assert that he was.
R & N were likewise each married at one point. In their case, they may not have had much choice in the matter, but it is a stronger indication of heterosexuality than the opposite. They had a close relationship, but it was an older-generation/younger generation thing, and again the burden would be on those claiming it to be in any way sexual.
The Centurian - I don’t remember the details off the top of my head. Can you explain?
Thanks Homebrew.
First, I have to agree with the Bishop of South Carolina on one issue, and I think on one issue only: we (the Episcopal Church) don’t have a theology in place addressing homosexuality and homosexual relationships, and we need to state one, not “back into positions” as GC 2003 did.
Yes, I for one was well aware that there would be some negative repercussions from the conservative wing of the church on the Robinson ratification and the “local option” on blessing same-sex relationships. I was, to put it mildly, taken aback by the vehemence of the reaction, but I did expect some.
Nonetheless, I stand by what General Convention did, and for much the same reasons that the AAC are up in arms – we should never let political expediency or a desire to compromise for the sake of union deter us from doing what is right. Either our gay members are people with the same hopes, fears, loves, hates, grace, temptations, etc., as the rest of us, full members of the church and entitled to its blessing on their covenanted relationships, or they’re sinners unrepentant and need to be cast out like the evangelical right claims. There’s no real middle ground there. And I think it’s plentifully obvious which position I take. And if a man be chosen for bishop who is living a moral life in such a covenanted relationship, then there are no moral grounds for refusing to ratify him in that position, certainly not on the gender of his spouse.
With regard to the three stories that Homebrew brought up, to which I would add Jesus and John, I would have to point out three things: “love” has a wide variety of meanings, not merely a romantic/sexual meaning. Ruth and Naomi were to widowed women, mother-in-law and daughter-in-law, who had formed a firm loving bond between themselves that served to accomplish great things, not merely in their own lives, but for the world as a whole. (Remember who their great-grandson was.) The centurion cared deeply about his servant, whom he refers to as his “pais” (boy) – which was both the term for a servant generically, à la the Old South usage of “boy” for a black servant, and the usage of an older man for his more youthful lover, much as matt_mcl refers to Potter as his “boi.” In neither case is there a clear suggestion of sexual relationship, just a strong love that did not “fit” traditional role relationships.
With my own given name and my life story, the David-and-Jonathan story is the one that speaks to me most deeply. First and foremost point is that Scripture itself does not state a sexual component to this relationship. There are more than a few implications that may or may not suggest one. What we do know is that they were two young men, both of whom married and had children, who loved each other deeply, and who were unafraid to show that love physically, in ways that would not say “friendship” in 21st Century Western Civilization customs. Only in a Calvin Klein ad would two young men stripped to undergarments hugging, kissing, and proclaiming their love for each other be construed as non-sexual.
IMHO, it’s high time that we are honest about what we believe and whom we welcome, to take a stand that includes all who feel called to follow Christ , or bar the door to those who make us uncomfortable and join the evangelicals in proclaiming our own righteousness. As someone who means what he says in reciting the General Confession and the Baptismal Covenant, I cannot in good conscience buy into the morality propounded by the AAC, and I find it hard to see how they can juxtapose the two.
The AAC is a real piece of work. Seems they were one of the organizations that stood behind a rebel priest’s refusal to recognize the authority of the Bishop of Washington in settling an intra-parish dispute at Christ Church in Accokeek, MD.
The deeper I dig into their website, the more I’m appalled by them. They are condemned by their own words and actions.
That’s one thing we can all agree on, it seems.
The “evangelical right”, if you are referring to the traditional Anglicans, are claiming no such thing. In fact they would (and do) espouse the first part of your statement. They would even agree that they are entitled to the church’s blessing on their covenanted relationships – the disagreement is over what constitutes a covenanted relationship.
I fully agree. On the other hand, if a man chosen for bishop is living an immoral life outside a such a relationship, you would agree that there are moral grounds for not ratifying him.
That’s exactly my point. These are all beautiful and loving relationships, but they are not presented as romantic or sexual.
It would certainly raise eyebrows in our society; but of course they didn’t live in our society. Two men can be loving and affectionate without it being a sexual relationship.
Poly, I’m very disappointed to hear you describe the evangelical position that way. No one in this debate has advocated we “bar the door” on anyone. Everyone is welcome, and even the AAC has explicitly pointed that out in their statements. You read my post in another thread when I talked about how encouraged I was to learn that a couple of gay young men had come on our young adults retreat. And as for “proclaiming our own righteousness” - neither side has a monopoly on that, sadly.
There are none so blind as he that will not see:
1 Samuel 18:1
After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself.
Interesting parallel to Genesis 2:24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
1 Samuel 18:4
Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt.
1 Samuel 18:3
And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself.
Hey! A “coventanted” relationship! 
1 Samuel 20:17
And Jonathan had David reaffirm his oath out of love for him, because he loved him as he loved himself.
More of that two become one stuff there
1 Samuel 23:17
And he said to him, "Do not fear, for the hand of Saul my father shall not find you. You shall be king over Israel, and I shall be next to you.
And who sets next to the King but the Queen?
2 Samuel 1:26
I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women.
It’s interesting how the ESV writes this one:
I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan;
very pleasant have you been to me;
your love to me was extraordinary,
surpassing the love of women.
Yeah, that’s platonic.
Well, no, it’s not really the same, is it? “One in spirit,” and loving someone as yourself implies a deep connection and concern for one another. Love, but not romantic/sexual love. “Becoming one flesh,” on the other hand, definitely describes a physical (sexual) union. If you pulled up a verse that said “Jonathan and David became one flesh” or “he knew him and went into him” or something like that, it would be different.
Jonathan was giving up his claim as heir to King Saul and recognizing David as the future king of Israel. Still not indicative that there was a sexual relationship there.
Ok, you got me, they made a covenant. But I don’t think it’s the kind of covenant relationship that Poly was talking about. They didn’t marry each other.
Where does it say that?
Well, I would think a close friend and trusted advisor would stand beside the king (maybe on the other side from the queen)? And that’s only if you take “standing beside you” literally and not as it’s commonly used as a figure of speech.
Well it’s an odd turn of phrase to our modern ears. But “love” doesn’t necessarily mean “sexual love” and doesn’t seem to mean that here.
Two quick comments, with more in-depth to follow:
-
I would be guilty of the judgmentalism that Skammer was distressed to read in my post if I had broad-brush tarred the right wing of the Episcopal Church with the condemnation I made of “the evangelical right.” However, they were, in general, not the people of whom I was speaking. Rather, by that term I meant the congeries of groups who are quick to condemn gay people generally, ranging from the SBNC leadership, the Concerned Women of America, the American Family Association, the ocus on the Family group of ministries, and all the other folks whom liberals generally condemn as “fundies.” In attempting to be tactful in my terminology (per Na Sultainne’s protest), I inadvertently left the door open to a misinference that I was speaking of conservative Episcopalians. I have seen a few of these speaking in terms akin to that group, but for the most part their stances are more akin to that of which Skammer speaks. I am appalled at some AAC pronouncements, but nowhere to the extent to which I am repelled by the self-righteous, false-witness-bearing bilge that exudes from the group I intended to condemn by that term.
-
Homebrew, you may be 100% right in your inferences about the relationship of David and Jonathan – or you may not. I am more inclined to see it as a romantic/sexual relationship than not – but what I was doing was sticking to the witness of I Samuel’s text and, insofar as possible, reading nothing into it. And having been in a non-sexual romantic relationship with another man as deep as the D/J bond for twelve-and-a-half years now, and having just returned from three weeks staying with him, his wife, and their kids, I find it extraordinarily easy to read this passage either way. What I do derive from it is that the love of two people is not to be condemned on the basis of what prejudices we may bring to the situation – God did not, and does not. And, quite frankly, right there is the basis that I see for resolving this controverted problem.
Suuuure …
But then it’s so clear that David did love Jonathan’s sister whom he did marry at Saul’s insistence, who was the second sister Saul offered. Oh wait, the text never says he loved Michal and he had to be convinced to marry her.
And what of
1 Samuel 20:30
“Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse [David] to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother’s nakedness?”
Isn’t that the nakedness usually used as an indication of sex?
And Young’s Literal Translation is even more interesting with
1 Samuel 20:41 The youth hath gone, and David hath risen from Ezel, at the south, and falleth on his face to the earth, and boweth himself three times, and they kiss one another, and they weep one with another, till David exerted himself;
“Exerted himself”, wonder what that means, he asked knowlingly.
Polycarp
So did you strip naked and embrace with your “son” or weep together until one of you were “exceeded”? I trust you see the difference.
Poly, thanks for your clarification. That’s what I had hoped you meant.
Homebrew, those verses are interesting. Before responding I’m going to go home and read them in context and in various translations and check in with you tomorrow. In fact I might get a chance to ask my preist tonight.
While you’re at it, take a gander at these:
1 Corinthians 6:12
All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.
1 Corinthians 10:23
All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.
So while all things may not necessarily be good for me, it seems all things are lawful. Of course this comes in the middle of Paul railing against fornicators, the perils of marriage and eating meat sacrificied to idols, so he contradicts himself somewhat. And, once again, I find Paul to be rather full of himself. I think Christians should be more concerned with following what Christ said than worrying about what others preached.
Again, for the record, that “Love God, Love Everyone else.”
Quoting Jesus:
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
“'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
So much on acta and agenda and resoluta of Episcopals, and whoever and whatever.
Religious people everywhere, and I am also one, the bottom line is whether and if we get to heaven or land in hell.
So, will the learned and pious people here tell me whether they will get to heaven and not land in hell? and how.
Luther, he got so worked up with hell that he invented the doctrine of salvation by faith. A pretty good doctrine and very convenient one.
But it leaves a lot of questions not answered and open up so many others.
O.K., everyone here, tell me how to get to heaven and not land in hell; I am really most angst-driven in a way. But in a manner like how to rebuild the vehicle power steering pump.
Susma Rio Sep
Sorry, Susma, wrong thread. But there are other debates you can find (some probably active right now) that discuss various opinions on who will get to heaven and how.
Homebrew:
You mean like in I Sam 19:24? “And [Saul] also stripped off his clothes, and he too prophesied before Samuel and lay down naked all that day and all that night. Therefore they say, ‘Is Saul also among the prophets?’” Were Saul and Samuel in a gay relationship? How about Noah and his sons? How about Jesus and his executioners? Nakedness does not equal sex.
This has nothing to do with sex. To paraphrase Saul, “You son of a bitch! I know that you are siding with David! You bring shame to yourself and to your mother who gave birth to you!”
Which is it, “exerted” or “exceeded”? I’ve found the following translations:
NASV: “they kissed each other and wept together, but David more.”
RSV: “and wept with one another until David recovered himself.”
NEB: “and shed tears together until David’s grief was even greater than Jonathan’s.”
KJV: “wept with one another, until David exceeded.”
Sounds to me like they wept together, until David really broke down and sobbed. You’re really grabbing at straws to imply what you’re implying.
The other verses you quote – yes, we’ve heard all these arguments before. “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace might increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?”
I really don’t want to turn this thread into a debate about homosexuality itself.
Poly, what were you trying to say above where you quoted Homebrew?
How about if we leave that for your “heaven and hell” thread?
I forgot to respond to this part:
I don’t know what this has to do with David’s sexual orientation, but I wanted to clarify this. Samuel doesn’t say he had to be convinced to marry her b/c he didn’t love her; it says he had to be convinced to marry her because it would make him the King’s son-in-law, and he was worried about that. Once he is convinced that the King really does want him as a son-in-law, he marries her. He may not have loved her, it doesn’t say one way or the other (she was kind of a shrew).