Yeah, but single heteros can get married.
Single gays cannot, for the most part. It’s a catch 22.
But you know I am for gay marriage.
Yes?
Absolutely: we all must stand up for those things we believe in. But we don’t have an either/or here; we have a continuum of possible responses.
For many years, those who believed that gay unions could have God’s blessing, and should have the Church’s blessing, were on the losing end of these deliberations. Did they stalk out, shaking the dust off their sandals, the first time their beliefs were rejected by the majority? No, they didn’t; they stayed and worked within the Church for what they believed. But now, with sides reversed, you see what is happening.
Those who were in the minority this time could do the same: they could stay in the Church, work within it for what they believe, and stay around long enough to see how this change affects the Church (aside from the effects of their own actions, of course, since those actions are under their control).
If gay unions are truly wrong in the eyes of God, they will still be wrong in His eyes two years hence, and presumably the spiritual cost of blessing gay unions will have started to manifest itself. Those who wish to break off today could just as easily do so then. But the other possibility is that God blesses gay unions, and that the Church will become better for having finally yielded to His wisdom. In two years, the spiritual benefits of blessing gay unions should have started to manifest itself. Many of those who wish to break off today might realize then that they believed the wrong things, and be glad they stayed. But they will not have that realization if they are somewhere else, condemning the existing Episcopal Church from a distance.
This is hubris. This is the sureness that one’s beliefs are indeed those of God as well, because they are pre-empting the possibility of having to find out whether they are right or wrong. By leaving now rather than waiting, they can simply assume rightness, rather than waiting to find out.
No, you misunderstand me. I wasn’t asking for that discussion. I was asking about the one that hasn’t taken place - the one about why Church acceptance of this particular sin (for purposes of argument) is big enough to break the Church over, but others aren’t.
For example, let’s rewrite your paragraph above like this:
“If I believed that divorce and remarriage was a sin, I believe it would be detrimental to my spiritual well-being to remain in union with a larger body which elevated someone to a post of leadership who engaged in something that was personally believed to be sin. We could rehash all the arguments about why people believe divorcing one spouse and marrying another to be sinful, but that’s something about which Christians have gone round and round for many years.”
And indeed, the Bible backs up the notion of the sinfulness of divorce and remarriage, much more strongly than it does homosexuality. It’s in Jesus’ own words. In my lifetime, the large Protestant denominations have, one after another, changed their tune on this question. (Roman Catholicism does an end run around the question by granting lots of annulments, frequently after decades of marriage.) At the tipping point for each denomination, many people believed their denomination was making the wrong choice, that their church was condoning sin. Yet by and large, they did not leave; they did not schism.
Which is why I ask those who would schism to wait on the Lord, to see what sort of fruit the Episcopal Church’s recent actions will bear. They might find out what the Lord has to say, if they will only wait on the Lord, rather than acting precipitously.
No, she’s right. See my previous post, where I compare this with the Protestant churches’ handling of the divorce issue.
Since that would unquestionably violate one of those two commandments that our Lord said were the greatest, rather than violating a biblical precept that wasn’t even important enough for Him to address…you get the idea.
The Episcopal Church has taken a different position on an issue of significance than the other churches in the AC have. I will not interpret that as its having “separated itself from the Anglican Communion” until I hear Rowan Williams say so.
At any rate, when the leaders of the Pittsburgh diocese say they and their fellow travelers are the ‘true’ Episcopal church, and the Episcopal church proper isn’t, it’s hard to read that as anything but a filing of divorce papers. Everything else is sophistry.
RTFirefly, let us say that those who wish to break away from the larger Episcopal fellowship wait two years for further discernment. At the end of those two years, they are still as convinced as they were in the beginning that it is not fruitful for them to remain in communion with their brethren who believe that it is fruitful to name a bishop who is in sexual union with another of his gender. What then should they do?
jayjay, perhaps churches soon will all come to a point where they must apologize for any views contrary to homosexual acts. We can’t often see what lies 100 years ahead.
lel, no, we can’t see a century into the future. But it seems to me that people who are more concerned with the things Jesus was, like love and compassion rather than law and strictures, would see the plight of gay Christians and do a little gathering on the Sabbath…
Perhaps it is both important to adhere to the law and to show love and compassion. To make things rather abundantly clear, I’m by no means advocating not sharing love with other Christians, whatever their sexual orientation. Rather, I fear that if the election of this bishop causes some to stumble in their walk with God, perhaps it is best if they follow what they believe to be true and form/join another congregation.
I don’t think there’s a bishop on the face of this earth who hasn’t or eventually won’t take some action which will cause someone to stumble in his or her faith, whether they intend to or not. It all comes with the whole “fallible human” business. When I strongly disagreed with our current bishop a few years ago, it was over his decision to send our priest, who was suffering from clinical depression, to a Catholic retreat center where he was not allowed to take Communion.
It’s my understanding that Pittsburgh is closer to schism on this than any other diocese in the country. I do realize very much that I’m in the minority, and so far the discussion has been much calmer than most of the ones I’ve seen on line, but apparently our Bishop has said that moderates on this issue cannot be Episcopalian. I don’t have a cite for this, but it came from a man who is, in fact, a moderate on the issue. For what it’s worth, in addition to being a member of the vestry [the local church’s governing body], he’s also head of the local Boy Scout troop.
I’m not about to rehash all the usual arguments on homosexuality – that’s what GD is for. That said, I don’t buy the comparison of homosexuality to incest, simply because no matter how large one’s family is, it’s an extremely small percentage of the population, and I don’t believe the argument that human beings are inherently attracted to just one person. For homosexuals, as for heterosexuals, the number of people one could conceivably attracted to is roughly half the population.
Also, Kalhoun, I may shock you, but I really do believe casual sex is wrong for heterosexuals, homosexuals, and all shades in between. It’s extremely tempting at times, and I can hear the arguments for why I should indulge in it, especially with a partner who is all too suitable in every way except that he’d be a lousy husband for me and I’d be a lousy wife for him, but, in my book, it’s still wrong. Just one question, one I’ve been dying to ask for a month: if you both go home after an evening together without having sex and masturbate like mad, is it still technically celibacy? I have a sneaking suspicion I may be slipping into a grey area here. 
CJ
I want to know where it says in the very nicely written book called the bible that homosexuality is bad. Anyone have a cite?
Some religions believe that the only sex you should have is for procreation and sex for enjoyment is bad so does that mean when I got my tubes tied in February I should never have sex with my beloved husband ever again?
This (the OP) is exactly the reason I left the penticostal church 18 years ago. I was going thru a Transformation of Self [sup]tm[/sup] and went to my pastor for guidance and what I got there wasn’t exactly what I was expecting. I never went back and have only been inside a church (a total of 4 times in almost 20 years) for weddings and funerals since. It’s sad that people have to be so judgemental of others that they drive them away from the exact place they NEED to be.
At that point, they should withdraw from that communion if they still feel that is what God is calling them to do.
Siege, I think our split congregations need “marriage” counselling. Surely some of the same principles that are taught to couples who are struggling could be put to good use now.
quote]lel: I fear that if the election of this bishop causes some to stumble in their walk with God, perhaps it is best if they follow what they believe to be true and form/join another congregation.
[/quote]
My mother used to talk a lot about not causing another Christian to stumble. Then I noticed that she drew the line at what she believed – not necessarily what other Christians believed. For example, Mother sold cosmetics. Didn’t she ever wonder if that might cause someone from a very convervative church – one that taught its members not to wear makeup – to stumble? Apparently not. (And I didn’t give up dancing or holding hands either.)
All of us have qualities that might result in someone else’s messing up from time to time. Thinking that we have a monopoly on God’s truth can hurt someone else. Anger and judgment can cause someone to stumble. Seeing ourselves as other but One in Christ may be harmful.
I just don’t see how love for another human being can be seen as a negative thing the same way that self-righteousness, judgment and duality can.
Wonder what Jesus had to say about that.
How much better is a measure of love and compassion rather than the law? Choose your measure.