Spectrum - is your sexual orientation really the very core and being of your humanity? Is celebacy really a denial of your humanity? If so it is quite contrary to Christian belief. Many heterosexual people are celibate in order to get closer to God. Are celebate people less human than sexually active people? I can understand your frustration with this issue and I hope it dosen’t keep you away from the church - but Christianity certianly doesn’t teach us that our sexuality is the core and being of our personhood. This is true regardless of sexual preferance.
Skammer, the plan mentions that the bishops don’t agree on issues of sexuality. You say there is “tacit” agreement on same-sex marriage blessings; is gay marriage something being considered? Is doctrine concerning extramarital sex of any type being reconsidered?
Right. Sex is sex is sex. And sex outside of marriage is immoral according to orthodox Christianity. Gay sex outside of marriage is no more immoral (comparative outcry notwithstanding) than hetero sex outside of marriage. Leaving aside whether a marriage between two men or two women will be accepted by the church, AFAIK Bishop Robinson is not “married” to the man he is living with. I can see why it’s hypocritical of a church to appoint a leader who is in a state of sin and plans to continue on that route.
I am Catholic and if I see a hetero couple in church who I know are living together, I don’t hate them. Am I uncomfortable with the fact that they are sinning against the Church? Yes. Do I make any judgments about how God sees them? I try not to. Love isn’t a warm and happy feeling, it’s wanting for others what God wants for them, to walk in a holy path.
Personally, I’m not sure if I’m gay or straight or whatever, and have started to come to terms with the idea that I may never have a relationship again, either way. I don’t feel that God hates me or made me wrong, or didn’t send the right man, it’s just the way it is. My relationship with God is so much more important that following the doctrines of the Church is the right way to live my life. It’s an opportunity for sacrifice, like many other things we do or don’t do so as to do God’s will.
And I think that it is important whether transubstantiation occurs. 
That’s not correct. The Primates released a statement on October 16 of last year, signed by all the primates (except one, who was absent) – including Rowan Williams and Frank Griswald himself – which said in part:
Bolding mine. In essence, Griswald acknowledged that the confirmation would cause schism before he even took part in it.
While I was typing this, I got a call from my diocesan bishop (he wants to come to our next vestry meeting). He had some interesting things to say about the HoB meeting – he compared it to wallpapering over a big hole in the wall.
gigi – the last annual convention agreed that parishes who bless same-sex relationships are “operating within the bounds of our common life.” It’s not a legal marriage, but it’s clearly meant to be a same-sex substitute for holy matrimony (in most cases, anyway). I’m not aware of any efforts to reconsider extramarital sex (but at this point it wouldn’t shock me, either).
I guess it comes down to what you consider the relative pronoun “this” refers. Typically, this type of pronoun refers to the immediately preceding clause. Here:
It seems to me that “this” refers to the provinces who consider themselves to be out of Communion with the ECUSA. It’s their actions that “tear the fabric”.
Skammer, only my respect for you as a person of good heart and my desire not to make the tear any further prevent me from saying what I think of the stance of the self-proclaimed “orthodox Anglican” schismatics. For the same reasons, I have not started a thread on the exposure of that “priest of the church” from Sewickley who wrote up a strategy for subverting the government of the church to get his faction in control. (IMO, his ordination is valid but he should be deposed, defrocked, and then sued in civil court by the Church to get an injunction preventing him from even communicating with another Episcopalian knowingly, for that stunt.)
I know that an effort was made at our local convention to hamstring our bishop, a godly man with a heart for evangelism and mission to all people, who made the mistake of voting his conscience, after prayer and extensive study of the Scriptures and commentators on them, at General Convention, and what his conscience told him was not what the right wing of our church would have had him do.
This has gone beyond where healing is possible, at this point – the insults and assaults from the right are as bad as anything they thought they were hearing from the left. And it is good people like you who end up in the middle suffering.
BTW, is “revisionist” the proper term for those who make a decision based on pastoral considerations that appears to go against traditional moral teachings, or for those who attempt to unilaterally rewrite the consensus-building tradition of Episcopalianism to a “my way or highway” stance?
If you break it apart into “re” and “vision” and interpret it has “looking at something again,” it aptly describes the former and sounds like a compliment, to my ears: Adaptability is a virtue in people and organizations. I’m sure that’s an abuse of the etymology, and not what the people using the word intend, but I’ll take what I can get. 
JFTR, I think the time has long passed when anyone paying attention can deal with this in a “love the sinner and hate the sin” framework, with gays being the ‘sinners’ and homosexual orientation, desires, and expressions of erotic love being the ‘sin’.
We’re all sinners, of course. But if the Church can offer gays no better choice than that between celibacy and reprogramming, then it’s the Church that has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
Now, I’d like to move on to the issue that Skammer raised in the OP:
Exactly how is this inadequate? Nobody promised anyone else ‘power’. Rolling tape from last October’s statement of the primates, which you’ve quoted from already:
I don’t see a promise of ceded power or control here.
What this does, Skammer, is to end the debate, right in the OP. Rather than debating what the ECUSA should have done within the context of the present situation (the election of Gene Robinson, the primates’ statement), which would have been a perfectly legitimate debate, you’re going back to “homosexuality is sinful”.
And in that debate, one can either accept the handful of specific Scriptural references to homosexuality as controlling, or one can go back to first principles and re-examine those verses in the context of loving one’s neighbor - which starts with giving some credence to the possibility that gays might understand their own reality better than we do.
Because this is what the ‘homosexuality is sinful’ position ultimately comes down to: the claim that that handful of Scriptures possesses a deeper understanding of what it’s like to have a homosexual orientation than gays themselves do.
In the end, we can look our gay friends in the eye and say either, “what you believe about yourself is a lie” or “what you believe about yourself is the truth.” It’s legitimate to say the former to a friend under exceptional circumstances. But where is the rupture of integrity, of inner honesty, that would justify saying such a thing? I know what it’s like to lack integrity; I’ve been there often enough. But if being gay diminishes one’s integrity, the evidence should be pretty apparent by now. And it’s just not there.
When people have addictions, such as to drugs or gambling, that require us to intervene in a friend’s life and tell them what they don’t want to hear about themselves, it’s because the rupture in their integrity that the addiction causes, works outward from there and fractures their lives. It’s pretty clear that being gay just makes one gay, end of story.
The ‘authentic Anglican authority’ to which you initially appealed - the primates - didn’t give you that option. So the Anglican Communion doesn’t support your refusal to accept the authority of the ECUSA, nor does the ECUSA itself.
You now have a choice: accept the ECUSA as ‘authentic Anglican authority’, or refuse to do so - under your own authority alone.
That’s schismatic. Even if you’re right on the issue of homosexuality, you’re the schismatic. Get over it.
First, Polycarp and RTFirefly, thank you for your comments.
This exact thing happened at our convention too; except that you can replace the phrase “right wing” with “left wing.” In fact, due to the illegal maneuverings of some liberal delegates at our convention, we were unable to vote on any resolutions or come to any kind of compromise at all.
Not to mention the conservative congregations in Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and Ohio who suffer under Bishops hostile to their views.
There have been uncharitible comments from both sides. I don’t see how healing or reconciliation is possible either.
Well, if Griswald and the Robinson supporters had followed “the consensus-building tradition of Episcopalianism” we might not have this problem. But they didn’t wait for consensus, despite pleading from home and abroad. If a group makes decisions against traditional moral teachings, then I think “revisionist” is accurate and not unnecessarily derisive (though maybe not as good as “heterodox”.) It’s because you know me as a person of good heart that I resist following the examples of others in using “apostates” and “heretics.” (I don’t think those are quite accurate).
It’s inadequate in that there is nothing binding on the bishops. It lays out a procedere that may be followed “if for serious cause in the light of our current disagreements on issues of human sexuality, the bishop and rector/congregation cannot work together” without defining ‘serious cause’ or saying who can determine if ‘serious cause’ exists. There is no accountablity on the bishop to go through with this process – indeed, at least one bishop has said he has no intention of providing alternate oversight for his congregations. It only can work where it wouldn’t be needed. From the link in my OP:
Not only that, even if the congregation goes through the whole lengthy process to obtain a recommendation for alternate oversight, the recommendation is not binding on the bishop. And even if he or she consents, the alternate oversight is provided by another bishop of the hostile bishop’s choosing – not the parish’s. And what does it provide? Someone else to do confirmations? What about sponsoring students to conservative seminaries? What about licensing conservative preists? None of these questions are addressed.
Half of all the Anglican primates – representing about 75% of Anglicans worldwide – have either declared themselves in ‘impaired communion’ or out of communion altogether with ECUSA. However, they have declared themselves in full communion with the dissenting dioceses and parishes within ECUSA. I don’t know for sure what will happen when the Eames Report comes out, but I doubt that the majority of the primates will be encouraging the dissenters to submit to ECUSA, which they consider an apostate church.
Even Eggerhaus, in the third post in this thread, has questioned whether ECUSA needs to remain aligned with the Anglican Communion. I think they’re well on their way to not being so – but some of us would like to not schism from the Communion.
If your state tried to secede from the union, and you tried to stop it, does that make you a traitor or a patriot? I guess it depends on whose side you are on.
Regarding the question of who exactly are the schismatics here, this story sums it up from both sides.
As opposed to my diocese, where I suffer under a conservative bishop?
Vast majorities of both bodies supported Robinson’s elevation to bishop. That’s a consensus. If it’s not enough of a consensus, then blame the rules which allow for a simple majority to give the nod to an elevation. Don’t blame those who simply follow the procedures already in place.
As in the Pittsburgh diocese, where Siege is currently dealing with a bishop who’s not only an Inertialist, but a Secessionist.
Yes - AEO works both ways. Parishes in Pittsburgh or Ft. Worth, if they feel they are facing hostility from their bishops, would be able to seek oversight from more liberal bishops. Bishop Duncan has already stated he would support this.
The vote in the House of Deputies was 128 deputations in favor, 63 opposed, 25 divided. The vote in the House of Bishops was 62 to 43. Those are fair majorities but hardly a “consensus.” If we had consensus, we wouldn’t be talking about a divided church.
How are they different? I’m not trying to be annoying, or lead you into some kind of trap. I am genuinely curious.
Semi Hijack- Contains Witnessing
While reading this thread, I realized the second purpose of those passages condemning homosexuality. Primarily, they served to create a Jewish culural identity and prevent assimilation. That’s been obvious for years. But, just now I have seen the second purpose. The Talmud (and I’m guessing the NT as well) teaches 'If doing what you know is right means having to disobey the government, then disobey it. If doing what you know is right means having to disobey your parents, then disobey them. The condemnations of homosexuality teach ‘If doing what you know is right means disobeying the Bible, then disobey it.’
The Bible is meant to be, among other things, a link to G-d, not a god in its own right. It is also no substitute to the link to G-d we all carry in our hearts. Through that, we may hear G-d without risk of prior editting or mistranslation.
I am celibate, and frankly doubt I will ever marry. Thank you for denying my humanity.
There is a substantial difference between choosing celibacy and having celibacy forced upon you by church edict. This is one of the major problems I have with the Catholic opinion that it’s not a sin to be homosexual, as long as you never do anything about it. “But the religious orders are celibate! Why is it such a hardship for you?” Because people CHOOSE to become a priest or monk or nun, with full knowledge of the vow of celibacy. The Church asks those of us who are attracted to the same sex to be celibate, regardless of our personal calling or not, on pain of damnation.
Subtle difference, but it’s still a difference.
I have **not **chosen celibacy.
Error bolding. That was supposed to be: I have not chosen celibacy.
The point of it is that spectrum’s of reasoning says that your choice of orifice defines who you are, and that if you are do not have a sexual relationship you’re not fully human. And I find that unchristian on several levels.
The point is that your sexuality is more than just a “choice of orifice”. It’s more than sex. It’s the whole bundle of feelings and desires. The point is that you are (apparently) celibate because you believe that sex outside of marriage is a sin. But you have the possibility of marrying a person to whom you’re attracted, even if you don’t think you’ll end up doing so (and, given that there are over 5 billion people in the world, and over half of them are women, if you don’t ever marry, that IS a choice for celibacy in your case).
Gays and lesbians don’t have that option. We’ll never have that option under the current rules. What’s being asked here is for gays and lesbians to deny their feelings and desires for the rest of their lives, no other option, if they wish to continue being members in good standing of the Church. There’s no choice involved, other than to stop believing in the Church.
The only way that gays and lesbians will ever be equal in their options is for the Church to recognize their relationships, thus bringing them in under the aegis of “sex within marriage”. You can bring up your own loser-in-love sob story all you want, but it’s not the same thing.
I am responding directly to the suggestion – no, the statement – that I have heard many times from gay Christians, that a celibate is somehow less than fully human. I have a dear freind who is pushing 60 and has never married; she simply never met a man she could fall in love with. I can’t won’t go into the full complexities of her story, but it is safe to say she has not chosen celibacy. I presume you would not suggest she marry some random male off the streets?
Perhaps more compellingly, I have another acquaintance who suffers from Neurofibromatosis – elephant man’s disease. She is now about 40, and given her deformaties, there has never really been any question that she would ever marry. She has watched her sister marry and raise wonderful children, all the while knowing that purely due to genetics, she would never have that chance.
Both of these wonderful women have been left in situations in which they have no sanctioned outlet for desire, and thus, by spectrum’s logic, they are somehow less than fully human. And that is what I am calling wrong.
I support the right of homosexuals to marry. But there have been several assumptions and attitudes that many gay Christians have unthinkingly adopted from the larger gay-rights movement that are incompatible with Christianity as a whole. Chief among them is the belief that the nature of your sexual desires is the defining element in who you are as a person.
In analyzing your discussion, I think these two points are very important, and often overlooked. However, you’re presenting them, in some ways, to the wrong side of the table.
According to catholic theology, celibacy is a grace bestowed on some to enable them to live full and complete, fulfilled lives in roles where a sexual relationship would be a problem, a hindrance, or a sin. (Lest that last be misunderstood, an obvious example of where it would be sinful would be an ethical person with pedophilic leanings.) It differs from chastity, the virtue to which all are called to aspire, to forgo sexual relations except in a committed relationship intended to be lifelong in nature.
The honoring of those called to celibacy is one thing. The mandating of celibacy on those not so called and endowed with the grace to persevere in it, is quite another. Draw that distinction, and the entire argument disappears. Like jayjay and Homebrew, Bl. Mychal Judge was a gay man. Unlike them, he was called to a celibate life as priest and friar. And he lived out that life in dedication to Christ’s work in the world, and ended up giving his life in ministry 2.5 years ago. And I honor him for his commitment to God’s work, for his humility and humor, and for having the honesty to be forthright about his orientation and deem the non-celibate gay men who were a part of his ministry his brothers in Christ.
And it’s my impression that the majority of gay people are not so much interested in defining themselves by their sexuality as in defending their sexuality, as an integral part of who they are, from those who would condemn it. Is gobear a gay man, a humanist, a libertarian, or a (transplanted) Virginian? Any answer that says anything but “all four, and much more” reduces him to a less-than-human status.
Grace, a good friend of my wife’s and mine, is a conservative Episcopalian who believes that sex outside marriage is sinful. She is also married, before God, in the BCP ritual, to Margie, the devout Reform Jewish woman who has been her partner for seven years now, and together they have adopted two special-needs kids. Defining her exclusively by her sexuality is absurd. She once remarked to me, “Yep, I’m an activist – but not a gay activist the past few years – I spend most of my time advocating more and better services for deaf-blind kids” (their older daughter being legally deaf-blind).
And I might point out, folks, that the so-called “revisionist bishops” also represent “revisionist” priests, deacons, and laity – and that the local annual meetings who elected diocesan convention representatives, and the diocesan conventions who elected delegates to General Convention, were well aware that the Bp. Robinson issue loomed on the horizon, and that they chose delegates who approved his election and consecration by over 60% in all three orders (bishops, priest delegates, and lay delegates) – after prayer and sincere listening and debating the issues involved. If an argument can be made about a minority attempting to impose its will, it would be the one led by Bishop Duncan and his henchpriest.
If you folks on the conservative side of this debate would care to join me in prayer, I’ve been regularly holding up in prayer the Rt. Rev. Daniel Herzog, a personal friend who is Bishop of Albany, an AAC member committed to the Episcopal Church, and a man I have seen personally ministering compassionately to gay people, as he works to achieve some peace between the factions.