First of all, no one in this thread is trying to make Spectrum a “second-class” Christian. Secondly, as to the question of judgement and the passage from Romans that you quoted I am not sure that it relates to this question in the way that you interpret it. After having listed all the wicked deeds (sins) of people Paul goes on to remind readers that everyone partakes in that wickedness – that no one is innocent. I don’t think anyone here is claiming to be without sin while at the same time condemning Spectrum.
By “do not judge” to you think that Paul was suggesting that a person should not decide what is proper behavior in the eyes of God? The answer usually offered to this question (in regard to this issue) is: No, but that everyone should decide for themselves what is proper in the eyes of God. But as you can see this poses a serious problem in regard to the Church as a unit. Should the Church teach that every person should decide for themselves what is right and wrong? Jesus didn’t teach that, neither did Paul (both give firm edicts on what is proper and improper behavior). This is a problem that keeps popping up in this debate. That is that many people are confusing the idea of the judgement of how we are expected to live our lives with judgement of a person’s personal standing with God. I don’t know how Spectrum stands in his relationship with God, and I don’t purport to know that. I believe that this is what Paul warns me against doing. I don’t however believe that Paul was warning me against making a judgement about what constitutes moral behavior in general.
Well, sir, the reason why Skammer started this thread in the first place was not because schism was threatened in the church because of Spectrum’s sexuality. But it was because of someone’s.
So let’s take a good look at the “church’s judgment of what is proper and improper behavior.”
Are all Christians supposed to be celibate? Hmmm – we’re not Cathars or Shakers; I see pregnant women and kids being baptized all the time – and there have been no reports of Gabriel showing up to announce additional Virgin Births AFAIK. Must be that that’s not the case.
Are all bishops supposed to be celibate? Well, in the Anglican Communion, not since something like 1549. They’re privileged to marry or not, and have children, etc., at their own discretion.
Well, then, what about divorced men remarrying? We’ve had dozens of bishops who have ended their marriages and remarried, and nobody suggested that this was an offense warranting schism.
So it gets right down to, How about a gay man in a committed relationship? Can he be a bishop? Ah, there are grounds for “rending the seamless garment.”
Bottom line: we place our gay members in a different category than our straight members. The former must be celibate; the latter can have all the sex they want – and if they aren’t content in a marriage and decide to divorce and remarry, we’ll turn a blind eye to that. The former are welcome in the pews, provided they don’t make a nuisance of themselves, but they aren’t welcome to be ordained or consecrated.
If that isn’t making people second-class citizens, I want to know what your definition of “second class” is. And some of us are determined that “There’s a wideness to God’s mercy” is not just something we sing on Sunday morning, and then go forth and act like it’s pious platitudes. Some of us mean what we say in reciting the Baptismal Covenant, with its lines about “seeking and serving Christ in all persons, loving our neighbor as ourselves” and “striveing for justice and peace among all people and respecting the dignity of every human being.”
I’m inclined to believe that Skammer is one of those who do. I try my best to be one of them. I hope that you can say likewise.
I don’t have time for a long post at the moment, but I wanted to comment that when I was very young I thought the hymn was “There’s a wildness in God’s mercy.” I think I might like my version even more.
