The Continuing Saga of Episcopal Homo-Bickering

Great Debates
21

longhair, that is such refreshing news. You are about your Father’s business.

Hi, Skammer. You said:

And judgment and self-righteousness are also condemned in the Bible. There’s the rub. (Not that I’m ascribing those qualities to * you*!) But some of “Their Purple Holinesses” may be in need of our prayers.

Besides, what about those of us who are heterosexual who advocate that “love is a many gendered thing”?

I truly think that we need to stay together and work through this. If we do, it will help us to grow. We survived the changing of the Prayer Book and the ordination of women. Now most churches don’t think about those rough spots at all. It’s a little like a marriage. Working through tough times-- finding your way through the disagreements and looking at each other the next morning and saying, “I’m still here…” – that’s what builds strength for good purposes. It makes us more alive to each other.

I’m definitely on the liberal side in this issue. But if there were a split, I might consider going with the conservatives just to try to help add some balance. And I hope some conservatives would do the same with the liberal side.

22

friend zoe,

thanks

that is exactly the way we see it. it is none of my business who bishop robinson partners with.

i have a column due for the news letter, next suday we have a meeting and a potluck afterward to discuss the plans for the expansion of the narthex and class rooms.

next wednesday, we will be joined by a group of people who are starting a new church on the west side of town. they will be worshipping with us for awhile while they get ready to break ground.

our antique show and sale is in a few weeks. we rent space to dealers annually, and run a lunch counter (all profits to habitat) i have a couple of shifts in the kitchen.

we are working our sunday school at capacity, and the new class rooms will sure help. our youth group is planning the summer mission trip tp refurbish the chapel at the pine ridge indian reservation…

so you see bishop robinson’s sexuality is just not on our agenda. we are too busy being an active and thriving episcopal church.

lh

23

post script:

thank you, polycarp my brother…

lh

24

I’ve asked it before and never got an answer. Why is this issue worth splitting over? Why can’t you just accept that some people disagree on this issue. What is the harm to listening to a gay man lead your service.

“Advocating”? What does that even mean? Are you suggesting that he’s trying to recruit? Is he trying to make other people gay?

Or is he simply saying that Christ’s Grace covers everyone, including him, and being a living example of that? Maybe his calling is God’s means of reaching out to people like me whose faith has been fatally wounded by years of anti-gay preaching in my own church growing up. But you and those who would split over this push me away and harden my heart against God and faith.

25

Well, for what it’s worth, there will also be a Day of Christian Unity tomorrow at my church. There will also, apparently, be 4 to 8 inches of snow in my city tomorrow. In light of this week’s events, this day looks more necessary than usual.

CJ

26

I’m sorry, Polycarp, that I didn’t make my thoughts more clear! What I mean is that it’s easier to be accepting of what others call an “open and inveterate sinner” when you don’t believe what’s being done is a sin. I’ve said it before here but it seems like the moral guideline should change before someone is confirmed who violates it.

Yes, Jesus knows we’re all sinners and repeated gives us the grace to continue to do better. Yes, even as He said “Go and sin no more” He knew (and for certain too) that she would go and sin again. No, the emphasis is not on sin but on the grace to strive for better. The question to me is not about sexuality morality per se, but whether you elevate someone who is violating the moral guidelines of your church (assuming they are ones you agree with) with no intention of changing.

Jesus certainly was very clear about certain behavior as immoral. No, it may not be the church’s place to judge but at the same time should they be holding that person up as a moral leader?

I too know someone in the NH parish who nominated Gene Robinson for bishop. It feels unfortunate that she termed him first as “the first openly (actively??) gay priest nominated” and second as “and also a really wonderful guy.” Seems quite political but I guess that was part of the goal.

27

I mean, He hung out with sinners to show that everyone can be saved, that they are God’s children too, not because he thought what they were up to was hunky-dory. With His grace “even” they, whom the Pharisees and others looked down on, could be saved and blessed, and their lives become something worthy of God’s love. Matthew says if he has cheated anyone he will make it right, so if he has been up to no good, he has been converted to a righteous, moral life through the blessing of being around Jesus. His behavior reflects the blessing he has received.

28

I really hope I am not “being a jerk” by posting three times in a row, but I am off work today and have time to have things churn in my head and spill them onto the screen. Please be patient with my rambling.

I also must say that certainly I am not a Bible scholar as Polycarp and others are, and defer to my spiritual counselors (aka my parents :slight_smile: ) who were converted as adults and have the enviable zeal to really study Scripture and patristics. I also understand that the above story is not the best example since it may have been a set-up by the Pharisees. But it can’t be denied that in saying “Go and sin no more”, it is acknowledged that she was a sinner and through His grace she will have the strength to do better. “He forgave her” implies there was something to forgive, and “go and sin no more” implies He is providing the grace to do just that. In fact He is calling us to do better, even though there is no doubt that Christ has compassion for what He knows human beings are all about. He often says “Your faith has saved you, go in peace”. This would imply that He is providing the grace for change.

I don’t remain celibate because I am afraid of God’s judgment and punishment, but because I love Him and I am compelled (impelled) to do the right thing (as I understand it). Yes, left to my own faulty human devices I wouldn’t have the strength to do better, and God would understand that, but it is my responsibility and inspiration to try. Especially given the blessings I have received. It would be impossible to just say, oh, but we’re sinners, and just leave it at that; it’s denying the awesome power of change God can bring to our lives. Jesus has high expectations of us, expressed very clearly, and maybe they are unattainable at some level but we have to try.

What’s difficult is that an analogy can’t be made: What if you had a bishop-nominee who openly engaged in random sinful behavior_ and not planning on changing, would that be OK since we’re all sinners?, because since homosexual (or other extramarital sex) is not always seen as immoral by everyone, so the cry goes up, are you comparing a monogamous, loving relationship to random sinful behavior_? and it can go no further. But is there/should there be a higher standard of behavior applied to nominees?

29

I completely agree. It may be hard to understand, but I also accept Gene Robinson and Homebrew as human beings, and I feel a great deal of compassion for them. Neither one of them need my forgiveness. But Jesus did not then say to the woman, “Go back to your adultery. God is doing a new thing.” He said “go and sin no more.”

Absolutely right.

Look, I’m not saying that Robinson is any more sinful than any other Bishop. I love my Bishop, but he’s not spotless either. However, those bishops who tend toward self-righteousness or judgement will admit that those traits are contrary to God’s will for us - even if they don’t recognize it in themselves. If we had a Bishop who said, “God made me self-righteous, so it must be okay. At least I’m not lying about it” – I wouldn’t want him to be a bishop either.

I’m not sure it is worth splitting over; but churches have split over less. The problem here, though, is that I can’t see how the two sides can be reconciled. You know, if there is a dispute about the nature of the Trinity or whether worship should be high-church or low-church – well, we can agree to disagree. But in this dispute, I don’t see many from either side being willing to allow disagreement. With liberals in charge, the conservatives have the option of accepting a homosexually active bishop or leave the church. If the conservatives were in charge, gay clergy would basically have the option of seeking to change their sexual orientation, remain celebate, or remain in the closet. I don’t see a compromise coming.

“Advocating” was a poor choice of words, since I don’t mean that he goes out and campaigns for people to become homosexual. However, by word and by example he promotes the acceptance of homosexual sex within the Christian church. He is seriously misleading people, which is heartbreaking.

I’m truly sorry you have been subjected to “anti-gay” preaching, especially if it was railing against homosexuals as human beings and not specifically about sex outside a man-woman marriage (how come we never hear “anti-premarital sex” sermons?). And again, from my perspective it is the progressives who are splitting away from the rest of the Anglican Communion. And finally, I pray that you would not let me, that anti-gay preacher, or anyone else harden your heart against God. Your life, your salvation, is between you and Jesus Christ, and you cannot allow anyone else the power to interfere with that (even if that means we have to belong to different churches).

30

This is an excellent point, gigi. Of course he loved her, of course he did not condemn her. But he also acknowledged that what she was doing was wrong and that she required forgiveness and to turn away from continuing in her sin.

31

How so?

Oh the irony. So you’re saying that a person’s salvation is between them and God, yet at the same time you say Gene Robinson is misleading people. If his salvation is between him and God, why do you feel you can judge his lack thereof and condemn him as misleading people?

You still haven’t answered why it is such a horrible thing to accept Robinson, even if you wish he hadn’t been confirmed. How are you harmed in any way?

32

Do you really not know what I mean or are you trying to make a point? He is declaring that homosexual sex is perfectly okay in the bounds of a committed relationship. And further, that if a married man with children realizes that he is gay, divorcing his family is the right thing to do.

I’m not judging Robinson or his salvation. I believe he probably is saved, for all I know. But I am judging what he teaches and the behavior he embraces, and come to the conclusion that he has no business being a Bishop when these views directly contradict what 99% of the church has taught.

What do you mean by ‘accept’ him? I don’t accept him as a Bishop, and I think I’ve been clear why. I personally am not harmed directly, if I am allowed to disregard his spriritual authority in the church (which I don’t know if I can). Do I accept him as a person, as a child of God, as a fellow follower of Christ? Sure.

If you’re asking “other than by his being a Bishop, how are you harmed?” the answer is, I’m not. If he weren’t a bishop, he could go have sex with a sheep, and I wouldn’t give it two thoughts. You’re gay, Homebrew, and do I care? Not in the least. I think it’s wrong, but it’s none of my business, and more power to you. If you were made a Bishop, though, sworn to uphold the faith once delivered, to carry on the apostolic teaching of the church, then I would suddenly have a problem with it. Not even necessarily with you, personally, but with the institution that allowed it to happen.

33

:frowning: :frowning: :frowning:

34

The church has been wrong many times before. Why can’t you just trust that God has plans for Robinson, even if you don’t understand them, and just agree to stay in communion without forcing him and those whom he inspires out of the fold? What is the big deal with his “sin”? Why does this “sin” matter so much? I could understand if he was gambling away church funds or killing someone or doing something that causes harm to others. But this so called “sin” harms no one yet the conservatives act as if accepting Robinson will cause the earth to split open and you to fall straight to hell. Why not do as longhair’s congregation and focus on what you are supposed to? Bear in mind the parable of the goats and what Jesus said about doing to others as if it were him. Tend to your own lives. Why worry so much about others?

Can you not see how this extreme of a negative reaction to him causes people like me to conclude that you don’t truly accept us as equals in Grace? You can mouth platitudes; but actions speak louder.

(BTW, Poly, that’s one of my all-time favorite movies.)

35

You are assuming I haven’t been doing so, and assuming that I want to split.

I had my chance to split when my priest and 40% of my congregation left last July for AMiA, with me as Sr. Warden holding the bag. I chose to stay, and wrote an article in our newsletter about why: because regardless of what goes on in New Hampshire, or 815 Broadway, Jesus is working within the family of our local parish. We host a group of homeless people each week; we have a thriving sub-community of Sudanese refugees; we have a dynamic and thoughtful high school group; we have people from our church serving as missionaries in Chile and Africa; we have two of our parishoners in seminary that we support and are sending three more in the coming year.

In short, we live out the mission of the church – to restore all people to unity with God and each other in Christ. And it is precisely because I am staying and not splitting that I am passionate about the Robinson controversey. If I were going to leave anyway, I wouldn’t care so much. However, if the Episcopal Church finds itself on the outs with the Anglican Communion, I know which side I’ll stay planted in.

Sin always harms someone, even if only the sinner himself. But let me say again: there is nothing about this sin that makes it worse than others. In fact, I said on these boards that there are plenty of worse sins out there, even in the episcopate. It’s not that he’s a sinner or the nature of his sin. It’s the fact that Robinson, Griswold and the others insist that it isn’t a sin. And when, as a bishop, you declare that sin isn’t really sin, that’s a problem. Their arguments echo a certain voice from the Garden of Eden:“Did God really say thou shall not…?”

36

It’s called “scandal”. Scandal is a theolgical term that means, in this context, acting in such a way that influences other people to sin.

The opponents of Bishop Robinson believe that being in a homosexual relationship, and having homosexual sex is itself sinful…that it’s an evil action. (Obviously, Bishop Robinson’s supporters don’t believe that.)

So Episcopalians who feel that way are concerned that the appointment of Bishop Robinson might be sending a message that it’s morally ok to be in a gay relationship, and to have gay sex. People might think, if the guy does it and is still made a bishop, the church must be endorsing it. So, this might encourage a gay Episcopalian to, instead of remaining celebate, go out and have gay sex.

37

I wonder what sort of sins are sufficiently bad that a Bishop should lose their job if he/she was guilty of that sin? Since we should not judge others, does that mean that a Bishop should not lose his/her kob no matter what sins they are known to have commited and intend to carry on commiting?
If there are sins which a Bishop as a church leader and example to others must not be allowed to commit under pain of losing his/her office, then is the ‘divide’ between those who consider homosexual sex acts to be such a sin, and those who consider it a minor sin or no sin at all?

38

The issue is not the commission of sin, but the definition of it and relationship to it.

In a Christian mindset, a murderer who confesses his sin and repents is better off (in God’s eyes, not the law’s) than someone who steals a dime but refuses to admit his sin. The issue is not Robinson having gay sex – no one can doubt that Bishops have committed all sorts of sexual sin over the last 2000 years – but 1) his staying in a gay relationship, thereby saying it is “OK” and moreover 2) teaching that homosexual acts are not sinful.

Pretty much, yes.

39

Should all bishops, priests, and deacons stand before their congregations and confess their sins aloud each week? Should they let us know exactly where they differ with church doctrine and if they will not be reforming?

Different churches teach that a lot of different things are sins: Dancing, inter-racial marriage, cutting your hair, wearing makeup, wearing slacks, wearing dresses above the calf, holding hands with someone of the opposite sex, taking an oath, drinking wine, buying stocks, and playing cards on Sunday.

It was God who called Gene Robinson to the ministry and God who ordained him as a bishop. The two greatest commandments weigh heavily on my mind and I must put them before even the teachings of the Church. I’ve seen Church teachings be wrong too many times, but the two great commandments endure. For me, they trump everything.

Yes, I think that Bishop Robinson can be a moral leader just as any other bishop can be. I don’t know what his sins are; I’m certain he’s not perfect. That’s true of all the bishops.

40

Skammer- I don’t know if this means anything, but if you ever enter the Priesthood, I wanna join your church! You have the best balance on this issue I’ve seen.

Oh- except for tolerating the sheep-felching :wink: