Whenever you appoint a man to a position of authority in a matter of the practice of Christian faith, you have a problem. Which sinner shall we choose? The only thing we can be absolutely sure of is that we will be choosing a sinner.
I think the most damaging choice is to choose the man on the basis of what sin we find most objectionable. Rather, I would choose by which sinner seems to be most reliably trying to bring the message of Christ to the congregation. Not, look at me, and emulate me, because I am less sinful than some other parishioner. I would look for someone who leaves behind him the matter of sin, and seeks to build faith in the forgiveness of Christ, and the Love of Christ for each and all of us. If we wait to find sinless preachers there will be a lot of silence in pulpits around the world.
Which is not to say that that is necessarily a bad thing.
Tris
Pardon me, pastor, could you help me with this log?
This is irrelevent to Robinson, since everyone already knew; but in my opinion the answer is absolutely. Even if you
have a low view of church doctrine, you have a right to know where your priest or bishop differ from it. After all, they are sworn to guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the church (in the case of bishops).
But we are talking about the Episcopal Church, which doesn’t have an official stand on any of these issues.
Perhaps, but there is hardly a consensus on that opinion.
That’s fine. Can you show me where what I am saying contradicts those commandments?
I disagree with that first part but completely agree with the rest.
Skammer, you’ve totally hit the nail on the head with your understanding of the situation. I don’t believe homosexuality to be a sin, and I was elated when I heard about Gene Robinson, but I think you’re a bright one, nonetheless.
The facts, as I see them, are:
Some Episcopalians believe homosexual practice to be sinful.
Some don’t.
Those from fact #1 would rather not have an unrepentant homosexual be in a fairly high leadership position within the church.
It’s not a matter of having a sinless bishop; it’s a matter of having a bishop who knows what is sin and what isn’t. This would presumably be a pretty important job qualification for a higher-up in the Church. I would be very concerned, for example, if my church leader were married to his sister. This may not be a sin that affects other people, but I wouldn’t be comfortable taking religious guidance from this hypothetical pastor. This is not a perfect analogy, but I’m guessing that a number of Episcopalians feel very much the same way about Gene Robinson.
OTOH, while most Christians (and I assume non-Christians too )are pretty darn uncomfortable about incest, things appear to be pretty split about this whole issue of homosexuality. That results in a real pickle for a religious community. Do you pick up and leave a community of faith that you have come to love because you can’t trust a bishop to make sound statements concerning sin, or do you stay and simply choose to ignore said Bishop, at least concerning his teachings on homosexual behavior (if not on other issues?)
I think the question needs to be left with the individual churches. If a substantial majority in a particular church wants to leave the ECUSA, then maybe it’s (sadly)for the best. It doesn’t make sense to stay with a church org. that you can’t trust. If, however, as it seems with longhair’s church, this issue is one that doesn’t make a ripple in your own congregation, by all means stay united with your bro’s and sis’s in Christ. I don’t see a significant schism in the works, just a couple of churches that will unfortunately leave. And that’s sad.
This, by the way, is from a Baptist perspective, so you may choose to disregard it if you wish.
Why wasn’t this much hooha made over Spong? He was easily MORE heretical in his understandings of Scripture and the bases of the faith than Bishop Robinson, yet there was never this huge “We’re taking our ball and going home” movement from the conservative branches.
Additionally, to many Christians it appears that the Episcopalians who approved Robinson’s ordination don’t give a rip about sexual morals. Robinson is in a sexual relationship outside of marriage (yes, the US doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage, but that’s not preventing a church from doing so). If the Episcopalian church recognized same-sex marriage and Robinson was married, I guarantee there wouldn’t be as much of a fuss.
JayJay, Spong was passionately opposed by the conservatives, but never to the point of schism. I’m not sure I can explain it any better than to say that Episcopalians have always had a “big tent” attitude towards theology and theological oddity, and while Spong pushed the envelope there, he was within the tolerance zone for most, simply because what he did (other than ordaining openly gay clergy) was in that “he’s just doing theology” comfort area. Skammer may have better insight into why the two men are reacted to so vastly differently; I’ll defer to him, as and when he has time to return to this thread. (From having been employee and right-hand-man to a boss who was also Senior Warden of a church between Rectors, I can testify that it’s durn close to a full-time job by itself during the search process, so I have no doubt the man is extremely busy – and your (collective) prayers for him and his parish’s search would not be amiss!)
And to many people, it appears that the Christians who make this sort of judgment are straining at sexual gnats and swallowing enormous camels of judgmentalism and intolerance. I presume that all the discussion about what the Biblical passages about homosexuality may have meant, and those about what sort of attitude Jesus called us to inculcate in ourselves, were not at all convincing to you?
Gene is in a covenanted, blessed* partner relationship with Mark – the closest he can come in New Hampshire, USA, under the canons of our church, to being married to him.
Pay attention, sometime, to Episcopal discussions of sexual morals – they may not be what Grandmaw said were fittin’ back in the 1920s, but there are real moral principles underlying our understanding. (Of course, if you happen to be one of the people for whom disagreement with you over sexual morality is tantamount to denying any moral standards, following up on what we really hold to would deprive you of a useful weapon in castigating us – but I believe that the “if” clause here doesn’t really apply to you personally, emarkp, though I hope you’ll understand why I felt it necessary to say it.)
Meaning that a blessing has been said over their exchange of vows; I’m not presuming to decide what God may think of it, except in general terms, in using that word.
jayjay, that’s a good question, and I believe there are several reasons, some better than others.
Few people outside of his diocese or the university/seminary world heard much about him at the time. This was before the internet was ubiquitous, and your average parish priest never bothered to talk about him to the congregation. Where he was known, he was mostly tolerated, but in relatively small circles. He didn’t get anything like the media coverage that Robinson gets.
He was awful, but his theological innovations were never directly endorsed by General Convention or the Presiding Bishop. A layperson in, say, Texas, could say “the Diocese of Newark may have a problem, and the Episcopal Church is more tolerant of Spong than I would like, but it doesn’t really affect me directly.” With Robinson, you have the the approval of his ordination by the whole Convention coupled with the approval of same-sex blessings at the same time. Suddenly it wasn’t just one Bishop; it was dozens.
Similar to #2 – one always got the sense that Spong was never really taken very seriously, even by his defenders. I often heard people defending his right to say what he did; but I seldom if ever heard from anyone who agreed with him completely. Robinson, however, has serious support, which requires more serious and organized opposition.
FriarTed – I’ve toyed with the idea of going to seminary - my bishop even suggested it – but I don’t think I could do it. Besides, my wife said she would divorce me if I became a priest. I choose to think she was not totally serious, but if so I would have to seriously examine my position on divorced clergy as well
Okaybear, thank you for your kind words also. I think you understand where I am coming from.
IIRC, it wasn’t until he was already elevated to Bishop that JSS started writing & speaking against orthodox doctrine for the general public. Of course, he quickly was Bill Maher’s favorite cleric, tho I think Bill probably had Falwell on PI more frequently.
(Quick hijack- if only Bill had paired them up one night; now THAT would have been a theological smackdown! Either way! )
Anyway, once Spong was elevated, he was pretty much safe unless he’d been found guilty of major vice which actually damaged someone.
I just deleted some stuff because it would generate more heat than light.
Skammer- how about sweetening the deal & suggesting she get ordained & you be co-rectors? S Or would she like that even less?
To many people it appears that Christians are bonkers, so I have trouble caring that much. Does it appear that way to you?
From what I have seen of it (not much, actually), no it hasn’t. It looks a lot like rationalization, and severe distortion of the written word.
I’m confused about USA/canon connection. Are you saying their relationship has the same standing as a marriage in the Episcopal church?
Contrary to your assertion above, Jesus did not forgive the adulteress, but rather counseled her to sin no more (as you said higher up). If Robinson’s union isn’t recognized at the same standing as traditional marriage by Episcopals, it seems to me it’s interpreting it as “hey, no problem, keep it up” rather than “sin no more”.
How fortunate for me that I must answer to the Man who said what He considered the greatest commandments, and not to you who evidently disagree with Him, then! As for the discussions on translation errors, I’m seeking an understanding of what the words in question actually meant when they were written, not what a translator in the service of a church with pre-written dogma finds it useful to render them as.
If I were saying that, I would have said it. He lives in a state that has not legalized SSM. He has entered into a covenanted same-sex union which has been blessed in accordance with the “home rule” provisions of the relevant Canon of the church['s canon law], as decided at the same General Convention that accepted him as a Bishop of the Church. It is not a “marriage” in the eyes of the church at the moment, but it is the equivalent step which is permissible for same-sex couples – a “religious civil union” if you’ll allow me the solecism.
Look, I hate to tell you this, but most Episcopalians are not going to turn from their beliefs in what God has called them to do simply because one Mormon feels they’re being heretical in doing so. There’s a mild bit of irony inherent in that that I hope you find as wryly amusing as I do.
As for the woman taken in adultery, you’ll have to show me Scriptures that explicitly prove that Jesus did not forgive her. She was under accusation of capital sin from the Jewish standpoint, brought to Him for judgment, and what were his words of instruction to her? (Hint, there were ten of them, not merely five.) If you are asserting that “…sin no more” is a withholding of forgiveness because it implies that he thought she had sinned, then we are at some sort of disjunct here. Jesus forgives sinners; he doesn’t forgive the already-perfect, for two reasons: (1) there’s nothing to forgive, and (2) they don’t exist.
Look, I am going to make this pretty clear. We are not telling you that you cannot “seal for eternity” or baptize for the dead. And I am getting more than a little ticked off at people wandering in and telling the Episcopal Church that it is going to Hell in a handbasket for the heinous sin of treating gay people like they were actually human beings with feelings like the rest of us. (You might notice that Skammer, the one person with a right to a say in what the Episcopal Church should do who is a Doper and who takes a anti-VGR stance, is not taking the condemnatory route either, but simply saying that VGR’s consecration and episcopacy elevates what he still considers as sin to a point where he needs to deal with it, because of VGR’s role in the national church as well as his own diocese. Gobear and “goboyfriend” would, I understand, be welcome at Skammer’s church, as an openly gay couple, based on discussions in previous threads, because they’re not in the same sort of leadership role that VGR is.)
The trouble is they are also very all-encompassing and vague in the sense of what they mean in terms of how we treat each other and how we live our lives. Love means wanting what God wants, and wanting good (God’s will) for ourselves and our fellow man.
This is then translated into guidelines for moral behavior, some of which were stated clearly by Jesus Himself. There may be disagreement about what these guidelines should be, but they are an extension of the two greatest commandments. Those commandments contain all meaning but that meaning is interpreted and extended to the choices we make in specific circumstances.
And if love is not a feeling (in this context), neither does it follow that morality necessarily feels good. Something feeling good and right doesn’t automatically mean it’s moral, nor does something being moral mean it’s going to feel good.
So you’re going on record as stating that anyone who doesn’t agree with your interpretation of scripture is disagreeing with Christ? Are you really in a position to declare to all the world that yours is the correct and the only acceptible interpretation of scripture?
What does my denomination have to do with anything? My Episcopal friends have expressed dissatisfaction with Robinson’s ordination. Does that permit me to enter the debate?
This is ridiculous. Show me where Jesus did forgive her. Oh wait, you can’t. Note above my parenthetical comment about what the written word says.
No, I’m saying that he didn’t say “your sins are forgiven”. That doesn’t mean that she was never forgiven. Only that at that moment we have no record of Jesus forgiving her.
Funny, I didn’t think the debate was about me.
Then get out of Great Debates.
This is despicable. Your mischaracterization of the debate is a nasty swipe at anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of scripture. Your specious assertion that those who disagree with your interpretation of scripture do not treat gay people as human beings is disgusting.
Here’s a newsflash Polycarp: You are not the oracle Christians bow to for interpretation of scripture. Stop acting like it’s otherwise.
Newsflash back: I’m disagreeing with you. That’s why it’s called “Great Debates,” not “Great Agreements” or something.
You are privileged to believe what you like. I think you’re 90% wrong in your interpretation, but that’s neither here nor there.
And if you have Episcopalian friends upset about Robinson, I have ones who aren’t. My point is that he was duly elected and confirmed by the procedures of the Church, as put into place at a time well before any of this stuff happened.
To throw in my two cents concerning this side-argument, it seems to me that in his encounter with the adulterous women, Jesus:
Had compassion on her
Forgave her (“neither do I condemn you”)
Commanded her to turn away from her sin (“Go and sin no more”)
Which, not co-incidentally, is how we ‘conservatives’ need to be engaging in this debate about homosexuality. Concerning gay Christians, we need to
Be compassionate
Not condemn them
Call them to turn away from their sin
Hmmm, come to think of it, that’s how the church should treat everybody. One problem, however, is that people (on both sides) have trouble distinguishing between condemning someone and calling them to repent.
As a Catholic I renew very similar promises multiple times a year. Even from them some extrapolation must be made as to what the sins are which we are to resist and repent from. I don’t mean to dwell on the “rules” as the end-all (follow those and you’re golden), but as an extension of the love and inspiration we are given. We rejoice in following His will in letter and spirit. Loving Him gives us the inspiration to do the right thing even when it is difficult.
I’ll say it again and then I’m out, because you’re right that I’m not Episcopalian and don’t have a real right to comment: If a large number of your members believe extramarital monogamous sexual relationships are moral, move to change the moral guidelines, and then elect someone who is living this way. To move ahead with an election before this is resolved doesn’t make sense.
Gambling is a sin, drinking to excess is a sin, greed is a sin, … ad infinitum…
Should we expell all priests and bishops who sin and continue to sin? IF we did we would run out of clergy in an instance.
Should we redifine all the list as sinless, before we can appoint a bishop or priest.
Do we just carry on as usual and apoint sinful bishops and priests, only to dissmiss those whose sinning is such as to make them seem unfit to teach Crist’s word.
What minister sins less than mr Robinson?
Who here really sins less than mr Robinson?
If you feel you sin less how do you know?
)are pretty darn uncomfortable about incest, things appear to be pretty split about this whole issue of homosexuality. That results in a real pickle for a religious community. Do you pick up and leave a community of faith that you have come to love because you can’t trust a bishop to make sound statements concerning sin, or do you stay and simply choose to ignore said Bishop, at least concerning his teachings on homosexual behavior (if not on other issues?)
)