The Continuing Saga of Episcopal Homo-Bickering

Apparently the American bishops have apologized for upsetting the cart, but haven’t agreed not to consecrate other gay bishops, which is what the more conservative American bishops and African bishops wanted.

Apparently the conservatives can bear no dissent, no tolerance of other viewpoints and no Homos and don’t accept the offer as a sincere attempt at reconciliation.

The house of Bishops didn’t go far enough for the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes

It seems they’re adopting a scorched earth policy.

So…

Does the Episcopal Church accept homosexuality in the laity? If so, then it seems a simple fix. To me. I think that statement about power politics is the key point in the continuing saga. As long as one side can make their voice heard above the others, then there will be no change in policy.

Is a schism in the works?

Why did I know this would be about Duncan before I even opened this thread? :sigh:

Bishop Duncan is my bishop and I feel roughly the same about having him for a bishop as I do about having Rick Santorum for a senator. He’s the reason I formally resigned from the Diocesan Commission on Racism. He is very conservative in that he’s not even all that in favor of ordaining women as priests, let alone homosexuals. I am glad the issue of homosexuality has come out of the closet, so to speak and people are talking about it. On the other hand, I’ve heard from people in my former parish that this issue could split the congregation right down the middle, which would mean my hometown would have no Episcopal church because neither faction on its own is large enough to sustain an Episcopal church. Apparently some people really have said they’ll leave if the Episcopal church endorses homosexuality; others have said they’ll leave if it doesn’t. Basically, they’re going to ignore the elephant in the living room until the elephant dung piles up a little higher.

I can’t tell you to be patient; it’s not my life that this is directly affecting. I can tell you that Bishop Duncan is facing some very determined opposition within his own ranks and I will not stop working for this change to come about. I will also tell you that my determination to do so is as firmly rooted in my Christian faith as Duncan says his attitude is rooted in his. I come by my handle honestly. I can be ridiculously tenacious and stubborn when the situation calls for it and this one does. I promise you things will change. I just hope they do so soon enough.

CJ (Siege)

I also wonder if a schism is in the works, and frankly, also wonder why it hasn’t happened yet. If there’s such disagreement, why are they staying together? Wouldn’t it perhaps be more beneficial simply to split up?

I’m not sure I understand what’re you saying here.

What I don’t understand is why the conservative wing can’t accept that Spong, Griswold and others honestly believe that they are doing right. Why can’t they just agree to disagree and move on? Why must they demand that everyone bend to their will and accept their interpretation? Why are they willing to split from the church over this issue?

As an outsider looking in, it appears to me that more vocal group is the anti-gay clergy group. As long as they make their voice the one that the majority hears, then there is little impetous (sp?) for change. I could be wrong.

Is there anywhere that the laity views can be (or perhaps already are) made known?

Also, would a schism neccesarily be a bad thing?

My apologies if this comes across as unfeeling, I’m simply seeking more information.

They are making their views known, they just don’t get the press that the people calling for schism get. My own diocese is on of the most conservative in the country–in fact, the formation of the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes was driven by a church in the Dallas diocese. And, even out here in a conservative parish in the bible belt, there’s a lot of resistance to schism. A chapter of Via Media was formed to provide a platform for these views, and the one meeting that I went to was surprisingly well attended. The overwhelming majority of the participants were laity, but there were clergy as well.

I’m a recent Episcopalian–I joined within the last year. One of the things that I found most attractive about the church was the tradition of tolerating a wide variety of beliefs (and levels of belief: skepticism is OK at many parishes). The focus seemed to be on worshipping God (through liturgy, prayer, and thought) and that focus seemed strong enough to hold the church together. I think schism would be bad because it would destroy that cohesion: I don’t want to belong to a church where everyone thinks and believes the same thing. I like being surrounded by diverse beliefs, even when those beliefs aren’t my own (and the beliefs of those who want to schism over Bishop Robinson’s ordination are certainly not mine).

I see. I may have read things in the reverse. It’s the anti gay crowd wanting to split, then, right? The pro gay group simply wants to allow openly gay clergy. I had assumed that the current church stand was simply no gay clergy, but instead it’s still an open question. Is that correct? At least I got the loud part right. The antis are the loud ones.

Thanks. It’s a bit confusing trying to keep it all straight.

Right. Although it can be confusing, because the group the want to break away from is the Episcopal Church, not the Anglican communion at-large.

I don’t believe that there is a single, unambiguous church stand. Going for a dogmatic “Priests may be openly gay” or “Priests can not be openly” gay is WAY too straightforward for the Episcopal church. Instead, at the national level, expect to see very abstract statements that emphasise how important it is to hold together and, at the diocesan level, expect to see everything from gay clergy being openly accepted (look at the Diocese of New Hampshire, which is famously led by an openly gay bishop) to gay clergy being deep in the closet.

We’re Episcopalians, dear. We don’t schism. Why, it would be nearly as bad as eating your entree with your desert fork! :wink:

Seriously, the Episcopal church didn’t even split over slavery. As Metacom pointed out, the faction leading the split is the anti-gay faction. Those of us who do not consider homosexuals inherently sinful understand and respect the views of those who hold that point of view even while we strongly disagree with it. Ordaining women as priests was controversial and considered against the teachings of scripture. I understand other, more conservative denominations still don’t do it. On the other hand, we now have women priests and bishops.

In my case, I see a schism as very bad thing not only because it might be a first, but because it would destroy the small town church which help me survive high school and is responsible for me being Episcopalian. I suspect a great many other churches would also get destroyed in the fall out. To me, a schism would only bring about pain and destruction, the very things the church is supposed to be fighting against. It certainly isn’t compatible with that slight matter of loving your neighbor as yourself.

CJ
Cradle Episcopalian

Although, in an interesting parallel to gay clergy, there are still dioceses (such as Fort Worth) that won’t ordain female priests.

I’d be very interested in learning how many of the African bishops have multiple wives.

I suspect mine (Duncan) wouldn’t if he thought he could get away with it.

CJ

Can we get a few facts and details out of the way here, first?

  1. Gene Robinson was elected to the office of Bishop of New Hampshire by the diocesan convention, consisting of every clergyman in the diocese and lay representatives from every church in the diocese. He was one of four candidates recommended by a search committee, which included the mother of a Doper who’s posted on the subject before (I forget the name). He was the winning candidate, by a fairly large margin.

He was then put up for approval to the national church, before being consecrated and taking the job. Ordinarily his name would have been sent to each bishop and diocesan standing committee for their review and approval (or not). But because of the timing of his election, following rules of the church set decades earlier regarding elections of bishops within 90 or 120 days of a General Convention (the rules were inconsistent), it was taken up by the General Convention. He, along with nine other bishops chosen during that period, was put up for vote at General Convention. To be approved, they needed majorities in (a) the House of Bishops, (b) the clergy delegates to the House of Deputies, and © the lay delegates to the House of Deputies. Gene got between 60 and 70 percent approval in each of those three votes.

  1. The bishops and laity protesting have are doing so out of a sense of outrage at “an open and inveterate sinner” in the episcopacy. But by the theology of the church, we are all sinners saved by God’s grace and granted His forgiveness, trying to live out moral lives as He gives us grace. That explicitly includes our gay and Lesbian membership. In short, they are making an issue out of something that was done according to the rules of the church, and contrary to the very orthodox theology they are claiming to defend.

  2. As a national church, we apologized for unilaterally taking an action that threatened the unity of the Anglican Communion, not for what the action we took was. In other words, we did it without consultation, upsetting others, which was wrong, but we are not apologizing for naming Gene a bishop – just not for consulting with our fellow Anglican churches in the process.

  3. The very prelates who are doing the most complaining about apostasy and the like are the ones who have intentionally broken canons themselves when the canons did not suit their own prejudices. That applies to the bishops in the U.S. church and to the ones overseas who have been ordaining “bishops” for the schismatic churches that have left the Episcopal Church.

  4. As a church, we are called on to be sensitive and compassionate to: (a) our gay and Lesbian membership, which is quite large, since we welcome gay people who are not welcome at the churches they grew up in, and (b) that part of our membership who find openly gay people, or at least their sexual activities, to be contrary to their own view of Christian morality. Skammer has made several posts explaining the stances and feelings of this latter group, who are by and large not actively homophobic but rather constrained by scruple; I’ll defer to him if he chooses to add anything here, since he can explain their stance much better than I.

But to read anything into this but the noises made by a number of bishops who lost the Robinson battle (some of whom are sincere in their views and others of whom are finding it a good place to make the Activist Conservative noises about how everything’s going to Hell in a Handcart and get themselves some publicity) is fraudulent. A number of people do not understand fully how a gay person can be actively gay and a devout Christian. Others grasp it intellectually but are “icked out.” Some are actively opposed. But the majority of the church, insofar as I’m getting feedback from the typical Episcopalian-in-the-pew, as opposed to the loud minority on either side, is quite happy to have things just as they are, is not going to schism over this or any other issue, is supportive of anyone seeking God, or a closer knowledge of Him, being a part of the Episcopal Church if they so wish, without any checklist on race, national origin, sexual orientation, or opinion on the Filioque for that mtter.

I thought the position of those supporting Robinson and others was that homosexual relationships and non-promiscuous pre-marital sex were not sinful. How far would this idea go if a candidate was engaging in behavior actual thought sinful with no intention of changing? People make much of Jesus hanging out with sinners but He did always say, go and sin no more. There’s a difference between not judging and actively setting up as a leader someone who is violating the moral guidelines of the church.

Two issues: one, what is the proper behavior for someone with same-sex attraction? Chastity, to be sure, in the general official view of the Church – but does that require celibacy, or is sex within a committed marital-style relationship equally chaste, as it is for heterosexual people?

The other, on the other hand, and the one that Episcopalians are pretty well unanimous on, is “We have a Judge, and He ain’t one of us – all people are welcome at His Table.” It’s a refusal to allow manmade lines dividing humans into smaller groups subvert the fact that we’re all the children, by adoption and grace, of one Father. Race, sexuality, age – they’re all ways to split us into smaller groups of “us” vs. “them” and that’s not what He sees at all.

Finally, without sounding like I’m rounding on you, gigi, can I use your Bible quote as the springboard for another of my “Dammit, you’re taking it out of context” sermonettes?

“Go, and sin no more” are the last five words Jesus said to the woman taken in adultery, in the most famous addition to the Gospels. And it’s what every judgmental hypocrite (not directed at you) brings up whenever anyone talks about inclusiveness and nonjudgmentalism. The problem is the context. A bunch of stereotypically Pharisaical Pharisees (;)) have dragged this woman before Jesus, demanding that He judge her according to the Law – which would have meant her death by stoning. They’re trying to get Him in a catch – either He disavows the Law, turning people against Him, or His teaching about forgiveness goes down the tubes. He turns it back on them,. asking what the penalty in the Law for her offense is. When they answer Him, He says that the one among them who is without sin should cast the first stone. Then He scratches something in the dirt – some speculate it was a list of the sins of the accusers, though the Bible doesn’t say that. Since they all realize that they are sinners, they go away without a word – and without stoning her. Then He turns to her and says, “Has no one condemned you?” She answers, essentially, “No, Lord.” He says, “Neither do I condemn you. Go, and sin no more.” Fifteen words – a question, and two statements. And all people who look for grounds to condemn others on can see in it is the instruction not to sin! It’s an object lesson in why you shouldn’t find fault with the sins of others – you’re just as guilty yourself – and they’re just as forgiven as you, out of God’s love.

Of course, if you’re looking for something to get down on others about, you can find it in the Bible – but that is not the point, as even a cursory reading of Jesus’s story ought to bring home.

Poly, I hope you don’t hold it against me that I keep bringing up this issue with your church. I don’t mean it to make you weary. I do it because Christianity has such an impact on this country that I’m interested in seeing how Christians conduct themselves, especially when they disagree. The outcome affects me in many ways.

On a more encouraging note, I looked up the website for the evangelical group Sojourners after seeing Executive Director Jim Wallis promoting his book, *God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It * on The Daily Show. Now evangelicals are usually associated with Falwell and Robertson in my mind. So reading this group’s website is a salve for me.

(bolding mine)

Poly, my ears were ringing…

First, I think some kind of schism is both tragic and unavoidable. Both sides want to be “inclusive,” but I can’t see any way that the big tent of Episcopalianism is really big enough for the diametrically opposed views. The House of Bishops made that even more clear with their statement last week, that they have no intention of turning back from the path they’ve taken to embrace homosexuality as a legitimate expression of human sexuality. Nor should they, if they cannot in good conscience.

The problem is that whichever group is in power in ECUSA effectively shuts out the other side from the conversation. Currently, if you are a ‘conservative’ and cannot accept the authority of a Bishop who who rejects the traditional, historic understanding of Christian teaching on homosexuality – you’re out of luck. Either suck it up or leave (as the sad story in the news today of NH’s Church of the Redeemer testifies). On the other hand, if the traditionalists were in charge, the ‘liberals’ would find the lack of acceptance of homosexual relationships just as unbearable. I don’t see any middle way – we can’t agree that homosexual sex is half a sin. (By the way, Poly, your description of our problem with VGR is a little off the mark… of course we recognize that all bishops (and all humans) are sinners. But in this case, we see VGR not only choosing to remain in sin, but also advocating a type of behavior specifically condemned in the bible.

As far as who is splitting from whom, it depends entirely on your perspective. In my view, it is the Episcopal Church who has walked away from the Anglican Communion (not to mention 98% of all Christendom) by their actions - the conservatives have not moved and are refusing to move with them. The liberals, on the other hand, see the conservatives as threatening to break up ECUSA.

For the past eleven months I’ve been the Senior Warden (head of the lay committee that runs the local parish) at my church. We have been in between Rectors, but we had an assistant rector when I became Warden. It’s a conservative parish (affiliated with the AAC and the Network). In June of last year, as a result of the VGR debacle, the church split – half our congregation left with the priest and started a new church with AMiA. It was very painful for everyone. Those of us left are, for now, still committed to standing our ground within ECUSA – at least until the split finally, officially occurs.

** I hate using the terms ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ – they evoke a political spectrum which is not really relevent to the discussion (many ‘conservative’ Episcopals vote democratic, for example, and compared to my Baptist friends I’m a flaming leftist myself).

The solution, friend Skammer, is implicit in the story which gigi brought up.

Jesus did not “accept adultery as a legitimate expression of human sexuality.” Nor did he call for her to be stoned to death.

He forgave her. He had compassion on her. He accepted her as a human being.

Unfortunately, it looks like Christians don’t care to behave like Christ these days.

good evening friends,

in our diocese there has been some discussion of these issues, but there does not seem to be the acrimony we read about in other places.

at our small church, the consensus is that we refuse to be defined by this issue.

i am sure there is a variety of opinion, but we continue on the way we were before bishop robinson was consecrated our congregation is growing, we are embarking on a facility expansion project. we need more classroom space. our community outreach programs are going well. our plans for the annual fundraiser for habitat for humanity are well underway.

lh