Mainstream Episcopals response to General Convention and appeal to Anglican Communion

[Homebrew]

Samuel never writes that he loves any woman. The only known “love of his life” is Jonathan. I’ll grant that the evidence is scant and circumstancial. However I think it all adds up and your alternate explanations don’t cut it for me. The clincher is David’s lament and statement that Jonathan’s love is dearer to him the the love of women. David was at least bisexual.

Now we could also debate whether he’s legend or a real person, but that’s not really germaine to this discussion. But the fact remains that this is literature. As with all literature, each reader interprets stories differently. Is the Grapes of Wrath hopeful or depressive? There is no definitive answer. But I believe the story of David and Jonathan is clearly a story of eros.

[Homebrew]

By the way, you forgot to comment on the “all things are lawful for me” bit and the words of Jesus.

[Skammer]

I said this in reference to that:

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.

Let me explain the last bit: I’m going to assume you’ve heard all the biblical arguments against homosexual sex. Old Testament law, Pauline declarations, and Jesus’ endorsement of the male/female model of marriage. Loving one another as Jesus commanded is not incompatible with keeping God’s commandments. Etc, etc.

You can assume I’ve heard all the counter arguments: the OT Law doesn’t or shouldn’t apply anymore, we don’t follow other parts of it, etc; Paul wasn’t talking about loving committed sexual relationships, but selfish or one-sided ones; Jesus was referring to specific question about divorce and never mentioned homosexuality specifically. Jesus said to love one another is the second greatest commandment. Etc, etc.

Blah, blah, blah. We go on and on and neither of us is convinced.

I’d rather focus on topics that 1) haven’t been beaten to death and 2) offer us the ability to find common ground with each other. And more specifically, I wanted in this thread to hash out the current crisis in the Anglican church.

(I have to admit, though, that “Jonathan and David were gay” was a statement I never saw defended, so I appreciated your take on that, though we ultimately disagree on interpretation. I still see it as a model of platonic love, and I think you’re inferring a sexual component where none exists).

[Polycarp]

JFTR, I wrote a fairly long essay-post drawing on Scripture (mostly D&J) and my personal experience “in partial concurrence and partial dissent” with Brother Homebrew, quoting his post and editing it. The hamsters in their wisdom decided it was inappropriate and substituted the unedited quoted post with no comment, in a glitch I’ve never seen before. I requested it be deleted and a Mod. granted my prayer.

In that post, I observed that my comment to him in the paragraph numbered 2 above did not disagree with him but rather agreed with the likelihood of his inferences. However, even devoid of those inferences, I saw something positive in the bald narrative without attempting to read those inferences into it.

In sum, I reiterated that D & J were two men who loved each other and were unafraid to express that love physically. Whether or not there were actual sex acts involved is to me immaterial. I responded to 'brew’s question by recounting some physical aspects of my relationship with the yung man whose love has been a constant of my life these last twelve years, such as the time I held him in my arms when his heart was broken by a callous act by his soon-to-be-ex-girlfirend of the time.

Our relationship defies categorization – we used to speak of “switching hats” because it contained elements of intimate friendship, romance, father-and-son-role, etc. Because of it, I have absolutely no difficulty in grasping how two men can have a relationship that differs in no way from the love I bear for my wife and she for me, and similarly for any other married couple.

I consider that the “anti-gay Scripture passages” are vehement condemnations of some very real sins – idolatrous fertility rites, boy prostitution, pederasty, hedonistic quests for new kicks, etc. I think that applying them to the sorts of love relationships that apply in the cases of, say, scott and jeremy evil, matt_mcl and Potter, or Gene Robinson and Mark Arthur, is quite on all fours with taking the Biblical fulminations against fornication and adultery and applying them to sanctified marital love. I think it’s the same sort of legalism that takes Paul’s condemnation of the women of Corinth disrupting the Eucharist by crying out ecstatically in tongues and applies it to condemn the preaching and sacramental ministry of a trained seminary graduate who happens to be female, to use them in that way.

I look at I Samuel and the history books that follow it, and see repeated condemnation of sins committed by both Jonathan and David. But I do not see their love, which includes elements one would not see in today’s society except between gay men and those few odd ducks like myself, as being condemned, but rather blessed by God.

And in that I see. dimly, a way past the impasse that threatens to split our church.

[Homebrew]

*Originally posted by Skammer *
**Blah, blah, blah. We go on and on and neither of us is convinced.

I’d rather focus on topics that 1) haven’t been beaten to death and 2) offer us the ability to find common ground with each other. And more specifically, I wanted in this thread to hash out the current crisis in the Anglican church. **

So the question remains is why is this issue such a sticking point for those in the ACC? Why is this so much more important of an issue than any of the other sins that everyone one of the people in that organizaiton commit themselves? Why were you able to get over the ordination of women without scism? Why must this be the line? Why can’t you agree to disagree?

You’ve said that the ACC welcomes everyone, including gay people, into the church. From my perspective, though, I don’t feel welcomed by their position.

[IzzyR]

*Originally posted by Polycarp *
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.

I don’t see what difference it makes which group it is that you’re condemning (though the distinction may placate people with allegiances to a particular group). The point is the same. Saying “X is a sin” is not self-righteous. Preening about one’s own personal righteousness is. ISTM that unless you do not believe anything to be a sin, and never condemn anything, you are just as self-righteous as the “fundies”.

[Skammer]

*Originally posted by Homebrew *
**So the question remains is why is this issue such a sticking point for those in the ACC? Why is this so much more important of an issue than any of the other sins that everyone one of the people in that organizaiton commit themselves? Why were you able to get over the ordination of women without scism? Why must this be the line? Why can’t you agree to disagree? **

Because, if you grant their premise that homosexual sex is a sin (and I know you don’t, but bear with me), there are big differences between this issue and the others.

First of all, it’s not that this issue is more important than other sins that other church leaders commit. It’s the fact that ECUSA has said, “this thing, homosexual sex - we know that many of our clergy and laity believe it to be sinful. We know that the church throughout the centuries as interpreted scripture to say that’s it’s sinful. We know that our own worldwide communion has declared it to be contrary to scripture. But we’ve decided it’s not – so go ahead and perform your gay unions; we don’t have a problem with a non-celibate gay bishop.”

The big deal is that ECUSA has endorsed behavior that conservatives, including but not exclusive to the AAC, believe to be contrary to scripture. Other church leaders have sinned in the past, or rejected scriptural teaching (coughSpongcough), but not with the blessing of the church.

With women’s ordination, some folks did indeed believe that it was contrary to scripture and a number of people left the church at that time. Most decided that it was scripturally debatable, and not a matter of faith, and so agreed to disagree for the sake of communion. It wasn’t as if being a woman had been a sin in the first place.

**You’ve said that the ACC welcomes everyone, including gay people, into the church. From my perspective, though, I don’t feel welcomed by their position. **

I know. And I hate that. That’s why I’d rather try to build relationships with gay individuals than argue with them.

[Homebrew]

But still it doesn’t affect you personally does it? It’s not like they are forcing you to marry a gay man. Like with women’s oridination or racial mingling, they’ve decided the Church is wrong and needs to change.

It wasn’t as if being a woman had been a sin in the first place.

It’s not like being gay is a sin in the first place is it?

Being a woman: not sin
Being gay: not sin

Woman doing something (preaching in church): sin
Gay people doing something (sex): sin

The first changed, why not the second?

[Skammer]

You’re right, of course, being gay is not a sin. I didn’t mean to imply that.

And I wasn’t around for the women’s ordination debate, so my ability to draw parallels is limited. But I did find this explanation from the Rev. Canon Alison L. Barfoot, co-rector of Christ Church in Overland Park Kansas.

Now I know that you, and Poly, and others on this board (and in the ECUSA) will take issue with the statement that “Homosexual behavior … is uniformly condemned in the Bible.” But that is the foundation of the argument: the sciptural teaching on women church leadership is unclear; the teaching on homosexual sex is straightforward.

It is summarized by the distinction she makes toward the end: the ordination of a person in a sexual relationship outside marriage, including a homosexual relationship, is a moral issue. The ordination of women is an issue of church order. Although churches through history have split over matters of church order, and Episcopal Church and Anglican Communion were strong enough to hold together and agree to disagree. But when we are on opposite sides of a moral issue, there is no room to compromise.

[Homebrew]

In what way was it unclear on women? Women were not allowed to be priests before Jesus. Paul continued to say they weren’t allowed to teach a man. So where’s the inconsistancy? It sounds like a rationalization to me.

I call this the “logical extension” argument. The “logical extension” of the abolition of slavery was the ordination of women. And, the “logical extension” of the ordination of women is the blessing of same-sex unions and the ordination of individuals in same-sex relationships.

Methinks she doesn’t know the difference between analogous situations and post hoc ergo propter hoc.

[Skammer]

*Originally posted by Homebrew *
In what way was it unclear on women? Women were not allowed to be priests before Jesus. Paul continued to say they weren’t allowed to teach a man. So where’s the inconsistancy? It sounds like a rationalization to me.

I don’t know. Maybe we have to read her book. I was raised Baptist, so it always seemed pretty clear to me.

Seriously though, anyone who went through the women’s ordination debate a few years ago should be able to give us a quick briefing on the biblical arguments in favor of it. If only we knew a liberal-leaning Episcopalian with some experience in the church who might read this thread…

[RTFirefly]

*Originally posted by Skammer *
The big deal is that ECUSA has endorsed behavior that conservatives, including but not exclusive to the AAC, believe to be contrary to scripture.

The problem is, Scripture is contrary to Scripture. If you raise Scripture to the be-all and end-all, you’re forever stuck with denial and pretzel logic.

(I know: if you can’t trust Scripture, what can you trust? All I can say is, if the meaning of Scripture was self-evident, the classical creeds would hardly have been necessary.)

Most decided that it was scripturally debatable, and not a matter of faith, and so agreed to disagree for the sake of communion.

So what positions are a matter of faith, then, and what aren’t?

Never mind; I see on preview that you’ve answered this already:

It is summarized by the distinction she makes toward the end: the ordination of a person in a sexual relationship outside marriage, including a homosexual relationship, is a moral issue. The ordination of women is an issue of church order. Although churches through history have split over matters of church order, and Episcopal Church and Anglican Communion were strong enough to hold together and agree to disagree. But when we are on opposite sides of a moral issue, there is no room to compromise.

To be honest, I find that unsatisfying. Like with most things, there are greater and lesser moral issues. I could easily come up with moral issues which would divide the Church, if they were considered important enough for the Church to have a stand on. Take oral sex between unmarried persons: is that A-OK because it’s not genital intercourse, or is it what the Bible calls ‘unnatural intercourse’, and therefore immoral?

This is not to raise it as an issue of debate; I’m simply pointing out that such issues exist. And if homosexual relationships are a moral issue, this (non-)issue must be one too.

So ISTM that the ‘moral issue’ v. ‘church order issue’ dichotomy doesn’t suffice.

You’ve said that the ACC welcomes everyone, including gay people, into the church. From my perspective, though, I don’t feel welcomed by their position.

I know. And I hate that. That’s why I’d rather try to build relationships with gay individuals than argue with them.

Ultimately, “you’re welcome here, but not as you are” doesn’t work. While building relationships with gays, rather than arguing issues with them, is an admirable goal, it overlooks the obvious: that this ‘issue’ isn’t an abstraction to them, as Homebrew has reminded us. You aren’t going to have a good relationship with someone when they know you disapprove of who their SO is.

[RTFirefly]

*Originally posted by Skammer *
Seriously though, anyone who went through the women’s ordination debate a few years ago should be able to give us a quick briefing on the biblical arguments in favor of it. If only we knew a liberal-leaning Episcopalian with some experience in the church who might read this thread…

Unfortunately, that happened in the days of my wayward youth, when I was less than interested in such debates. So I’m not sure what arguments were raised for and against, inside ECUSA councils.

My dim recollection, though, is that the key element was simply a changed view of the nature of women. I grew up in an America where women really were regarded as intellectually inferior to men - and within the Church, spiritually inferior as well. I believe, looking back, that the key change was that a critical mass of men (since men were the ones voting in church councils) realized how ridiculous this long-held conventional wisdom was.

From there, what other way forward in love could there be but to recognize that women could have the same callings as men? I don’t know how they rationalized it, but really, what else could it have been about?

[Polycarp]

*Originally posted by Skammer *
**It is summarized by the distinction she makes toward the end: the ordination of a person in a sexual relationship outside marriage, including a homosexual relationship, is a moral issue. The ordination of women is an issue of church order. Although churches through history have split over matters of church order, and Episcopal Church and Anglican Communion were strong enough to hold together and agree to disagree. But when we are on opposite sides of a moral issue, there is no room to compromise. **

Two related comments here on that paragraph:

1. I’ve seen the argument made that “since a priest stands in the role of Christ in mediating God’s grace to us through the sacraments, it is a grave moral error for a female person to presume to attempt to stand in the role of God’s Only-Begotten Son.” While I don’t make that argument, to presume to attribute the one to “church order” and the other to “moral issue” is very Episcopal-centric. Dollars to donuts tomndebb, beagledave, or Dogface can find a RCC or EO statement that makes very clear that for them, female priests are not an issue of “church order” as priestly celibacy is for Catholics.

2. The idea that a sexual relationship outside marriage is an impediment to the ordination of persons who are forbidden to marry the persons whom they love, is something I’ll leave to our gay membership to fulminate about. I’ll merely observe that to me it sounds a great deal like Lizzie Borden throwing herself on the mercy of the court as a norphan. If that gets formalized, I think we ought to require that it be written into church law as Canon 22.

[Polycarp]

FWIW, my recor sent me a link to the Presiding Bishop’s Letter to the Primates.

As I promised you, upon my return to the United States I spoke with Canon Robinson and shared with him the deep concern that so many of you expressed and the gravity of what may lie ahead. In my conversation with him, and in public comments, he has expressed both his anguish and his continuing sense that he is called to go forward.

I must tell you that at this point there is every reason to believe the consecration will take place on November 2 as scheduled. I appreciate that when the consecration takes place, as we said in our statement: “…we will have reached a crucial and critical point in the life of the Anglican Communion.” As much as this is true, the prediction made in the statement that the Communion’s future “will be put in jeopardy” will not, I pray, come to pass. I believe it is for us to live into this unknown future in faith knowing that, as we declared in our statement, “…what we hold in common is much greater than that which divides us…” It is my hope and my prayer that the Spirit of truth, who makes known to us the mind of Christ, will be our guide as each of us in our own context seeks to embody and proclaim the gospel of the One who is our Truth.

[Skammer]

But surely you can see, in one case ordination is refused because of who one is (a woman) and in the other case of what one does (engage in homosexual sex). One’s indentity as a woman (or as a gay person, for that matter) is not a moral issue; one’s sexual activity or doctrine of sexuality is.

I’m not taking a stand on whether or not women should be ordained – but even I can see the key difference between the two arguments.

[Homebrew]

*Originally posted by Skammer *
**I’m not taking a stand on whether or not women should be ordained – but even I can see the key difference between the two arguments. **

The key difference is that you want there to be a difference. The more I thought about the arguement that one is a moral issue and the other is church order issue the more I came to dislike it. This is simply a rework of the whole arguement as to why you can wear cotton/poly blends, eat a cheeseburger or plant two crops in the same field; yet homosexuals are still bound by the Leviticus scriptures. You’ve simply invented categories that are not even implicit in the Scriptures. There is nothing in the text to suggest there is a difference between the rules. But you feel free to drop one and not the other by creating these arbitrary categories of issues. At least Liberation Theologists are honest about their reasonings behind what they pick and choose.

[RTFirefly]

*Originally posted by Skammer *
But surely you can see, in one case ordination is refused because of who one is (a woman) and in the other case of what one does (engage in homosexual sex). One’s indentity as a woman (or as a gay person, for that matter) is not a moral issue; one’s sexual activity or doctrine of sexuality is.

I’m not taking a stand on whether or not women should be ordained – but even I can see the key difference between the two arguments.

I can’t, because in this area, I can’t see the separation between what one is and what one does.

I mean, I’m a male heterosexual; accordingly, I desire sexual union with women. Male homosexuals desire sexual union with men; female homosexuals desire sexual union with women.

These desires, in my case (and in the case of those similarly situated) are a right and good thing, rather than something sinful, and the institution of marriage exists in which my desires can find their complete expression.

If it’s OK to be gay - if being gay is not itself a sinful state - then that yearning they have for union with someone of the same sex isn’t sinful. But then the desired union must not be sinful - because if something’s a sin, then wanting to commit that sin is itself sinful. (Matt. 5:21-28, and all that.)

This “it’s OK to be gay, just so long as you don’t act on it” has all along been a dodge, a pretense of a way out of the dilemma in the form of an alleged group call to celibacy without the need for God to make known His call to any of the individual members of that group. (Besides its making me think of the Moonies’ mass marriages, this idea really craps all over the larger notion of a calling from God.)

And IMHO, saying this is about what gays do, rather than what they are, is equally a logical and moral dodge. If being in a particular state is good, the actions that are the natural expression of being in that state must also have a place where they are right and good. I cannot de-link one from the other.