Canterbury says: It's schism

Telling the ECUSA to go their own way also cuts off the bank accounts. Can the Diocese of Dallas pay everyone's way in the dance with Africa? Why should the ECUSA support a Communion that spits in their face. You want schism? Now pay for it.>

The comments of Susan's and other so called liberals that I have seen on this thread and others show a concern for the money, the buildings, some strained notion of "tolerance" (Is that the new God?), leftist politics and little else. The "progressive" ECUSA (Or is it now TEC?) has spit in the faces of the wider Anglican communion and orthodox Christianity for years. As a soon to be former Episcopalian and continuing Anglican, I welcome the dance with Africa.>

How big a split does there need to be for the word "schism" to be used? That implies some kind of 50-50 or 60-40 or something.

This may be a financial schism, but not a numerical one when it reaches the pews.>

The question I intend to ask in my liberal Episcopalian church in a meeting we are having about this is as follows:

If liberal Episcopalians can't even stay "in communion" or "in conversation" with those who believe that homosexuality is a choice or a sin, how do we expect to be able to communicate with those who believe that homosexuals should be imprisoned (as is being supported by the Anglican bishop of Nigeria, I understand) or, God forbid, executed, as some orthodox Muslims believe.

I think liberals have been fooling themselves about what is really important. How do we influence the Bishop of Nigeria now?>

The faithful will find other places to worship and grow to love. I'm sorry for the elderly who will lose the comfort of familiar places in their last years, but if they're being faithful to the Truth, they already know the eternal compensation will be worth the sacrifice.

I worry most about places like Sewanee, where existence really is tied to location and structures, and are owned jointly by many soon-to-be unrelated dioceses. This is a place I would/will find especially hard to lose completely to the heretics.>

Meh - tempest in a teapot.

The American Episcopalians won't be hurting a bit.

Looks like the Archbishop, in his desperate need to exert control over the hearts and minds of peopel who have truly progessed beyond the "because I said so" paradigm of slavish religionism has condemned the rest of his congregation to a life of pious poverty.

They should *love* that, being in line with God's will and all that.

As for the ECUSA holding their bank account over the rest of the communion, I can't help but think that the conservatives of the communion would be right in line with that decision. Conservatives love to talk about personal responsibility.

Let's see how they do without the largesse of wealthy progressives.>

Following up on what cs just said, Susan, the Archbishop of Canterbury is quite liberal, yet even he believes the ECUSA has behaved in an arrogant and insensitive fashion, all in the name of inclusion.

Personally, I don't believe that homosexuality is sinful, and I think that there have always been gay priests in the Episcopal Church and elsewhere -- they just weren't known to be so by their congregations.

But I do believe that the liberals in the Episcopal Church, with the slogan "God is doing a new thing" have disregarded the conservatives parishes and dioceses. Forcing the issue has created a schism. It might have been wiser and more caring to keep listening to each other.>

This is a complicated issue indeed. I am a gay Episcopalian and hate to see the church destroyed by this issue. (C'mon, we're only 3 or so % of the population!) I think people who say it's about scriptural authority are disingenious. Would there be a schism if a millionaire were made bishop? The Bible has some pretty pointed remarks about the rich man's chances of entering heaven. What about Henry VIII -the founder?! He killed his wives when they couldn't produce a son --very Christlike, no? Moreover, most Westerners I imagine would be appauled at some of the beliefs of the African bishops with whom they are aligning.Most of these "conservatives" would doubtless feel more at home in the Diocese of Newark than the Diocese Nigeria!

That said, the bishops who ordained Robinson had to have known his sexuality would be a huge issue and that it would have very destructive implications. Had I been in Robinson's shoes, I would not have wanted to see my church destroyed over my sexuality, regardless of whether I feel it's a sin or not. There are far more pressing issues facing the world than gay rights.>

I have to congratulate Rich for being the one person who had the most Christ-like response to this whole issue.
As a liberal non-Episcopalian I think that the split might turn out to be a good thing. Let the conservatives and liberals go their separate ways. (I also think it would be best if the Presbyterian Church USA split too since they are going through the same turmoil as the Episcopalians are.)
But that being said I agree that no matter how well meaning the liberals were they should not have pushed the issue. As Christians we are called to be peace-makers, not agitators.>

So congregants should be more concerned with keeping peace within its ranks than exacting justice? It should be more important to keep cons and libs under the same roof than to stand on ones principles? This is a very important issue and it seems to really polarize people... some wishing to keep homosexuals in the arena of sick and deviant all the way to full acceptance as normal, loving human beings worthy of all rights bestowed on all other human beings... Issues such as slavery split churches too... these are human rights issues and require people to take a stand... especially those who believe the church should change, because for them the church is responsible for this sin against a portion of God's children... it must stop and it should stop as soon as humanly possible...

REAL change doesn't come without cost... without sacrifice... people are getting their panties in a wad and want to storm out with their ball and go home... play with someone else ... so what? so be it... If I want my church to be conservative and hold the line of 2000+ years ago or if I want my church to be progressive, to want change that makes sense to me... want inclusion and compassion... tolerance of differences... and I still want the sacraments and structure of my home church then I have every right to fight for change... and when it is an issue that is this emotionally charged then there is going to be a cost.

Lindy>

A lot of the conservatives commenting on this blog show they no very little of historical Anglicanism. The Anglican Communion is not a top-down, autocratic entity. As Dr. Lionel Deimel wrote, "The Anglican Communion has been more akin to today's British Commonwealth than to, say, an integrated international church like that of the Roman Catholics. Despite what anyone says, it remains at least for now, a fellowship of autonomous churches, haveing a ceremonial head with no formal authority, and without a curia empowered to make binding decisions for its members."

I joined the Episcopal Church 45 years ago, and the Archbishop of Canterbury is a titular head only. The Archbishop himself, much less an affiliate church such as those in Africa, have never had the authority to dictate policy or doctrine to the Episcopal Church - otherwise there would be no female clergy. The Presiding Bishop is our spiritual leader, and even that position has limited authority. The General Convention is our policy making body.

We are a sacramental, liturgical church - not a doctrinal church. We have always been a haven for refugees from fundamentalism (my parents come to mind here). All we ask is to be "let alone". We have never been nor do we expect to be the Church for everyone. There is a fundamentalist church on almost every corner, and I have no problem with that nor do I wish to interfere in their affairs. I only wish conservatives had the courtesy to return the favor.>

When liberals talk about tolerance, they appear to mean tolerance of "our sort" that is of the people we like.

In my opinion, tolerance begins with respecting the humanity of people we disagree with profoundly, not just raising our banner of certainty, and "Onward liberal Christian soldiers, marching off to war."

I think splitting the Anglican Communion is a great evil, and that pushing the issue by confirming Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire, and then refusing to "give an inch" during the recent ECUSA convention was the act of people who are more interested in fighting than in being in communion with people of different opinions.

If you have to exclude one group (conservatives) in order to include another, you aren't really practicing inclusion -- just changing the identity of those to be excluded.>

I remember the moment I realized I could no longer remain an Episcopalian. It was right after GC '03, and the moderate and moderately-wealthy congregation of the suburban Seattle parish I attended had gathered in the sanctuary to discuss the results. People on both sides were upset, and there were good questions on both sides. However, when one person (the wife of a priest, no less) angrily sputtered at someone with concerns about Robinson's confirmation that the entirety of Christian teaching consisted of "the traditions of a 2,000 year old desert culture," I realized that that was how the conversation was being controlled, and I knew there wasn't much point in trying to figure out how I could stay.

What I don't understand is this--if one has such contempt for historical Christian teaching, what is the point of calling oneself a Christian? Why bother? If one truly believes the institution and its teachings are nothing more than corrupt relics of the evil patriarchal and hierarchical Roman Empire, then why not go do something else? Why bother being a member of the clergy, for that matter, unless it's just that pagans don't yet have much of a retirement plan?

If I love tennis and hate baseball, why would I join a baseball team and try to get the rules rewritten and the field made over so that it looks and plays like tennis? Wouldn't it be easier to just go play tennis and call it tennis?

We are a sacramental, liturgical church - not a doctrinal church. Ah, yes. Right worship over right belief. Except that lex orandi, lex credendi--the rule of prayer is the rule of belief. One cannot meaningfully discuss right worship without at least a modicum of right belief.

Richard>

No one has answered the question of why the conservative churches on the other side of the world feel they have the right to dictate to progressive churches how they choose to run their own affairs.>

Hi, Erich. IMO, it was liberals in the church who forced the issue by their "majority rules, minority jump in the lake" vote to confirm Bishop Robinson, a hard-line position which they had the opportunity to soften at the recent ECUSA convention. They chose not to.

I have conservative friends who left my liberal congregation over this and other issues.

Brian makes an excellent point. My church evolved into a very liberal church over several decades.

In the 1950's it was a dying inner city church that was revitalized by two very progressive priests. Over a 42 year period, they managed to attract a tremendously diverse membership included all kinds of people, partly because of strong lay leadership and an appeal to both believers and skeptics, partly because of an unconventional approach that appealed to many conservatives as well as liberals.

In recent years, I note that my church has become more conventionally "progressive" with more of a feeling of "good progressive people think and feel this way and if you don't, maybe you don't belong here." As a result, we are becoming a less interesting, less diverse church.

I'm not about to leave my church, because it's still the best and most unique church I've ever attended, but I can't help but feel we've lost something we may not get back.>

Conservatives really have a hard time understanding Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion (2 separate things). It is funny but sad to see them try to define my Church under their limited worldview.

If a member church (Nigeria) tries to "tell another member church (The Episcopal Church) what to believe", the church "doing the telling" (Nigeria) is not acting under the precepts of the historic Anglican Communion - i.e. they are not acting in accord with Anglicanism. The Episcopal Church is not violating "the terms of membership" by running its own affairs. Other Anglican churches simply do not have the right to meddle any more than the United Nations has the right to dictate the speed limit in Georgia.

As we say in Texas, "I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you!">

Good?

Was it good when Costantinople split from Rome? Was it good when Henry VIII split from Rome?

Good?

You must be joking.

The Church has many parts-- they all work together in the Body. It has been ordained that way, if one believes that sort of thing.

I, for one, do.

It is a shame (if) the Anglican communion bows to pressure from the southern hemisphere on this one little issue (sexuality... how much time in a week do folk spend exercising this gift... and it gets this kind of negative attention-- God help us all). A real shame.>

Let's take the long view here, for a moment.
This is a rather extraordinary occurance. In this story of schism in the Anglican communion, we have white liberals of the West-- who have historically tended to look sympathetically (or at least have always wanted to be SEEN as looking sympathetically) at non-whites in the Third World-- now angrily turning on this same group for not being "progressive" enough. It goes to show that this peculair ideology of "liberalism" is predominantly a white, Western phenomeon. As birthrates in the West continue to decline and those in the Third World continue to increase (along with a corresponding trend in church attendance rates among both groups) the fate of the very ideology is all-but sealed. The death of Whitey will mean the death of liberalism.
Read all about it here:

www.thornwalker.com/ditch/nowicki_extinction.htm>

I can only speak to my diocese (philadelphia) but I know that the biggest congregations are conservative. Even if we do lose our buildings and land (as JamieJ has so graciously wished for us), we will survive. After all, it isn't the building of the church that makes the Church. If it is God's will that we start again somewhere else, we will do it. We have watched our friends be forced to already. May we move with the same dignity that they did...
But,the DoP will be w/o our money (and, PS +Bennison spends imaginary money already).
Let us also remember that this conflict within the Episcopal Church is not just about gay/lesbian people. The resolutions passed or discharge at the GenCon regarding the Lordship of Christ and the authority of Scripture were not at all in line with what a "church" should be. It's just easier to talk about gay/lesbian, because that's what gets people riled up!>

"If you have to exclude one group (conservatives) in order to include another, you aren't really practicing inclusion -- just changing the identity of those to be excluded."

Are conservatives being excluded? Or just choosing not to participate because they no longer like the atmosphere?>

Speaking to what Poetographer and Anne said, I didn't say that the goal of including gays and lesbians in the life of the church was not worthwhile.

In fact many congregations within the ECUSA are moving towards full inclusion. (The congregation I belong to being one example, as I said above.)

However, why is it a given that the way to go about reaching this goal is by picking a fight with conservatives and splitting the church, and then expressing surprise at the outcome? If exclusion is the only way to reach inclusion, perhaps we are going about it in the wrong way? Maybe even an unChristian way?>

Is opposition to ordination of homosexuals a "bad interpretation of Paul's questionable interpretation of Christ?"

What would you consider a "good" interpretation of Romans 1:25-26 (or I Corinthians 6:9-11)? Are you suggesting that Paul (who may have been one of the primary authors of much of the New Testament) had an understanding of Christ which is inferior to our knowledge of Christ's example 2,000 years later?

A basic principle of scholarly research is that earlier sources are more likely to be valid.

As to the contention that there have "always been gay priests," please offer an example of an openly gay priest in the history of the Episcopal church, or the Anglican Communion.

Anyone?

If no examples are possible, then Robinson is necessarily a departure from Anglican tradition and practice.>

Dear god,

I am not sure we necessarily understand more about being "neighbors" than St. Paul did. That seems to me to be a little modern hubris, i.e. the ancients were so stupid and we are so enlightened.

I wouldn't be so quick to denigrate the ancients. After all, we are a modern culture of death camps, the gulag, Hiroshima and Dresden.

But the point here is what is the real Christian point of view. If you think St. Paul flawed, then why even bother to call oneself a Christian? Just start a new movement and be done with it.>

I am not sure we necessarily understand more about being "neighbors" than St. Paul did. That seems to me to be a little modern hubris, i.e. the ancients were so stupid and we are so enlightened.

Why then his exculsion from Grace of homosexuals? Of drunks? Of liars? Of thieves?

Grace is given freely to everyone. Paul attached a behavior system to it.

Yeah - I'd say our ability to recognize that everyone is part of the family regardless of our personal prejudices makes us more enlightened than a guy who lived in Ancient Rome and hated sex.

Sue me.>

This is all very odd to me.

I left Catholicism over these kinds of issues. It never occured to me to remain in a Church that had no reason or inclination or rationale to be something other than what it was, and that didn't respect me for what I am (an alleged 'heretic' for starters)

Yet Episcopals majority votes have allowed them to develop in other ways, and in the US Episcopal Church it seems that many conservatives feel the same way about that church as I did about the Catholic Church, albeit for altogether different reasons.

I don't think leaving was a bad thing for me. Why make an established church into the Unitarian Universalists or Quakers, when there are already Unitarian Universalists and Quakers, just go elsewhere.

But when a community (in a region, with some control over their organization and position papers) develops in a way that is at odds with others, and it gets to this kind of thing, well it is a sort of organic development.

Is it like the Southern Baptist conservative takeover? Or is it more organic? That's what I'm wondering. Is it that US Episcopalianism was moving away from worldwisd Episcopalianism/Anglicanism and that 'orthodox' Episcopalians were growing differently? Or is it more artificial?>

"The street only runs one way."

This seems to be the sentiment on both sides of the issue. The ECUSA passed a resolution urging "restraint" on the issue, and restraint apparently means waiting less than a week before including a gay priest among the nominations for Bishop of Newark. The ECUSA is clearly disregarding the convictions of the conservative camp in the US, and the clearly expressed concerns of the Archbishop of Canterbury.>

Many good points have been made on both sides. It seems easier to address them in a few posts.

The first issue is that I fear that those on the other side forget one fundamental right, which is the right of free association.

A homosexual has no more "right" to become a bishop in a certain church than does an atheist. The church has a perfect right to set its own rules for membership and for leadership. We have fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not the right to wear an Episcopal Mitre.

If I want to establish a men's nitting club and exclude women, I can do so. If Muslims establish a Muslim Club, they do not have to allow Hindus to join. If you don't like it, don't join.

The courts have consistently upheld this principle save for public accomodation. I have a right to buy groceries at the store regardless of who I am but I have no right to participate in the Eucharist of a Church.

I really wish those who call this as a "right" would consider that its not a right at all. It may be morally wrong, but it is not legally wrong.>

Dear god,

You said: "Why then his exculsion from Grace of homosexuals? Of drunks? Of liars? Of thieves?

"Grace is given freely to everyone. Paul attached a behavior system to it."

You state the fundamental difference between the so-called Gospel of Inclusion and the traditional understanding of Christ's teachings.

I would ask you to consider this. Say you owned a large company. Would you hire former Enron executives to run the pension fund?

Of course not. You affirm their humanity but in that affirmation you do not become an enabler of them to continue to defraud people.

Another example. Say you have a son whom you love. However, he has gotten into drugs and stealing. You try to help him, but there comes a point whereby you are not helping him but enabling him. Would you shelter him from the police if he robbed an old lady to support his habit or would you turn him in so that he would get help?

The point is that God does give grace to everyone: you, me, a homosexual, a thief, a drug addict, etc. But God is not an enabler. I hate to use the trite phrase of "tough love," but there it is. It is the parable of the prodigal son.

Now you may accept the principle above, but do not consider homosexuality a sin. That is your right. But that is a different question. If you accept exclusion of some people on some basis, then you cannot use that as an absolute principal. If you reject any kind of exclusion, then I would not have you become my VP of Human Resources because you would not be able to choose the right person for the job.

To the traditionalist, homosexuality is a sin, and therefore a person who has that sin is to be loved but not to be given positions of authority in the Church.>

You are of course correct that he is "only one of 4 nominees." They may select another.

It does, however, demonstrate the point that the progressive element in the ECUSA seems very reluctanct to comply even with the spirit of their own resolution to "practice restraint" on the issue.

Nominating him within a week of passing the resolution is restraint?

What is exactly would "unrestrained" behavior look like?>

cs or anyone else who cares to comment,

I have a question pertaining to the theological issue that seems to be the root of the controversy, i.e., homosexuality.

As I understand it, the conservative factions believe that homosexuality is incompatible with scripture, including in particular the writings of Paul.

At the same time, it appears that words attributed to Jesus in the Gospel of Mark (Chapter 10) very clearly establish that re-marriage after divorce is adultery.

To my knowledge, and please correct me if I am wrong, the conservative factions do not have objections to re-marriage in the church after divorce.

I am unclear why the conservative factions apparently draw that distinction, and would like to better understand. This is an issue that has puzzled me for some time.

Thanks in advance for your efforts to help me better understand this central part of the controversy.>

To my knowledge, and please correct me if I am wrong, the conservative factions do not have objections to re-marriage in the church after divorce.

Okay, I will correct you, because you are wrong.

There are many conservatives who don't seem particularly troubled by divorce/remarriage. Often they justify such behavior on the grounds that the divorce took place before the person accepted Christ, etc. Not very persuasive.

But the traditional Anglicans are generally NOT hypocrites in this area. One of the many events at the latest ECUSA convention that outraged traditionalists was the approval of the ordination of a man who has been twice divorced and three times married.

I might add that Gene Robinson is not only an enthusiastic sodomite but also a divorcee who abandoned two daughters.>

Hi Brian,

Thank you for your note. Before getting to your question, I wanted to address another point you mentioned. You wrote,

you seem to imply that the issue of homosexuality discussed at the last Lambeth Conference was a matter that good Anglicans could disagree. I don't think that was the case. I think it was made clear that Lambeth and the Communion understood the issue as a grave one touching not only on behavior but on "Biblical Authority" (to use their term).

Your observation is right on target, which is part of my point. By indicating that this issue was a non-negotiable, and using the term "Biblical Authority", Lambeth was saying something different about the view of Biblical Authority than in historical Anglican documents like the Quadrilateral. Something I should have said last night (I thought more about it during the day today) is that the Quadrilateral itself was the product of a Lambeth Conference, the Third, in 1888. So I should have acknowledged that it is of course absolutely within the rights of a later Lambeth Conference to change (or clarify, to be gracious) their unifying principles. But I do believe that it does represent a change.

I think your assessment of the Archbishop of Canterbury's role is accurate. (You said, I think the AofC probably is closer to ECUSA than the Africa Bishops, but even so, he understood the former's actions as a potential break in communion and acted accordingly.) I believe him to be a man of wisdom, and I hold him in respect. While I wish a different outcome, I can't imagine how anyone could have done more to try to hold things together.

On to your question. You ask,

If ECUSA doesn't agree, then fine. Just part ways in peace. But please also let those parishes in the US to part in peace as well and not burden them with lawsuits. If you want the Global South Anglicans to leave ECUSA alone, doesn't justice demand that you allow those parishes to also go their own way?

I'll give you two answers, the legal one, and then my own. Everything with the process of how the Episcopal Church came to this point has been done within the established, documented rules that all agreed to, by being part of the Episcopal Church. Part of those rules relate to the ownership of church property; individual congregations do not own their churches. My own answer is that the law (both civil and church law) is not everything, and that there is much to be gained spiritually by the remaining Episcopal Church by treating their parting brothers with more charity and justice. Costs cannot be measured only in dollars, and I think all would be richer by letting the buildings and land go with the congregations, and wishing them well on their separate path.>

Dear Erich,

I am not sure that Lambeth was a departure per se. I would understand the issue as follows.

There was a basic understanding among the Anglicans over certain issues, especially moral ones. Now comes the ECUSA (and others) and they have a new and different understanding of truth.

The others in the communion said "Wait a minute, you are holding ideas which are contrary to what we we all held in common..." Therefore, they made a statement.

If you look at church history, this is how church councils functioned. A dispute would arise and then a council would settle it.

However, in this case, the issue was a settled matter and ECUSA wanted to change it.

It seems silly to me to have an association of churches held together by no specific beliefs. Why spend the money or bother to meet? The NCC or WCC is the forum for that.

BTW, there is a good article in the London Times about the AofC and this whole issue. The link is:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,542-2246425,00.html

Brian>

Dear Poetographer,

You may be completely on board with what Christ said or you may be mistaken.

Most of the NT was written directly by St. Paul or one of his disciples. Many scholars think that his "school" influenced all the NT writings with the exception of St. James.

For better or for worse, the Jesus you are reading about in the Gospels is part of the same group that produced the writings of St. Paul. I think you are on shaky scholarly ground if you try to divorce the two for ideological reasons.

In any event, I think you are trying to have it both ways. St. Paul is wrong on homosexuality, yet the scholars say that he really wasn't against them if you really, really read the context. Which is it?

The Church for 2,000 years has had one understanding of homosexuality. It interpreted all those passages in the Bible in a consistent way. Now, all of a sudden, starting in the '50's, scholars said "Wait a moment! This is not what St. Paul is saying..."

I have had a little NT Greek and took some courses at a graduate level in the NT...enough to be dangerous. I have never found those arguments in favor of re-interpreting the passages on homosexuality compelling.

I think that it has to do more with wishful thinking and trying to impose upon the NT and Jesus what we want Him to be...Jesus the Marxist, Jesus the Freudian, Jesus the Capitalist, Jesus the Traditionalist, Jesus the Redneck (I actually once heard a fundamentalist preacher say this).

If somebody doesn't accept the NT and/or the Church's teaching on homosexuality, fine. Its a free country. Start your own church or your own religious movement.

Brian>

Brian,

And in that you are probably right. But in your note to Poetographer you almost seem to be saying, to paraphrase, "Fine, if you don't believe the Bible to be inerrant, stop saying you're a Christian and start a new religion." If that is an accurate paraphrase of what you were saying, I'd take great exception. It takes one of several historic approaches to Scriptural authority and says that if you don't accept that approach, you're not a Christian. I've already had my say on that, when I wrote:

the hubris is not in daring to sometimes question Paul, but rather to believe oneself in sole possession of Biblical truth, and absolute arbiter of what it means to be Christian.

I'm off to long meetings. I've enjoyed the conversation.



Richard>

I wish conservatives would take to task those on their side who seem cavalier concerning divorce, which Jesus specifically addressed, while at the same time willing to leave the Church over homosexuality.

Bishop Stanton recently made a big deal out of his vote against approval of a divorced man as bishop at the just completed General Convention. Meanwhile, he unabashedly supports David Roseberry (the now ex-Episcopal priest) who himself is divorced and married for the second time.

We can only surmise it is OK to be divorced as long as you are a conservative extremist.>

Bob:

Has it occurred to you that perhaps David Roseberry is an ex-priest exactly because of his divorce and remarriage? Perhaps our side has thoroughly taken him to task.

Though it is totally undesirable, priests are allowed to divorce in TEC. They also are allowed to remarry, with their bishop s permission. These are long established facts of canon law, for whatever that is worth these days, and have nothing to do with conservatism.

And what, exactly, do you personally know about David Roseberry, or Bishop Stanton s attitudes for that matter? I think you took a cheap shot rather than making a reason argument.

Katherine>

Armando,

While variances exist among denominations, a general rule is that the more conservative a church, the harder the stand against divorce/remarriage. Few churches will prevent attendance/membership, but it is difficult in many Evangelical churches to become a minister if one is divorced/remarried. I have personally known people to lose ministerial credentials over divorce or infidelity. I'm not sure of the Episcopal stance on this issue.>

Brian -
Thoughtful response. Maybe I should have said I try to be on board with Christ, and for me that sometimes conflicts with Paul. In no way do I mean to imply I'm the authority on what Christ meant; I'm just doing my best to understand it. I, indeed, may be mistaken, but I don't think I'm trying to have it both ways. I'm not saying Paul was pro-homosexuality, I'm saying that he was addressing specific cultural practices, such as male temple prostitution, which Christians should avoid - not homosexual persons/ relationships as we think of them today. The six passages I refer to are both OT and NT, and not Paul-specific. So I'm saying: 1) when I perceive an apparent conflict between Paul's letters and Christ's words, I prefer to go with my understanding of Christ; and 2) Paul wasn't addressing homosexuality as many understand it today. These should not be conflated into components of a "unified poetographer theory of everything" as they address two different points.

I think claiming the church has had a consistent position on homosexuality for 2000 years is inaccurate, since the concept (and even the recognition) or homosexuality in the world has evolved over that time.

As far as "wishful thinking" regarding the character of Christ, every Christian is probably guilty of that to some degree, so in the end that argument is a wash. Without succumbing to intellectual dishonesty, I can't ignore what to me are conflicts in the messages.

I take offense at the "start your own church" remark. As a culture, we tend to believe how we think of things now is how we've always thought of them, and tend to be revisionist in that direction. IMO opinion, your comment that we've thought of homosexuality the same for 2000 years reveals that very tendency. Questioning the real meaning behind 2000 year old letters and asking what cultural biases we have placed and replaced on them is not the same as not being a believer. Maybe my problem is not as much with Paul as with the church's tendency to take his half of a written conversation with a specific people and apply it universally. He also had a position against women as figures of authority in the church; does disagreeing with that mean I should start my own?

Finally, I refer once again to the story of the Good Samaritan. To whom am I to show mercy? To those who are my bitter enemies over doctrinal disputes. IMO, a church without doctrinal debate is stagnant. To paraphrase Matthew 5:47, if you only get along with the like-minded, what separates you from everyone else?>

Bruce -
I'm DoC, not Anglican, Espiscopalian, or Catholic, so I do think refusing communion to anyone is treating them as something other than a neighbor. We don't follow the doctrine of trans-/ con-/ other- substantiation regarding communion, but see it as a pivotal Christian rite that remembers and honors the sacrifice of, and salvation provided by, Christ. It is an act that alo reinforces Christ's command that we serve one another; "communion" and "community" have the same roots. To us, "this is My body" is powerful and important and central to Christianity, but metaphorical and not a reason to deem someone as worth or not worthy of receiving it. Christ even let Judas participate in the first communion, so who are we to deny anyone?>

Dear Erich,

In re-reading my post, I think I conveyed an idea that I didn't mean to.

First, I am not a fundamentalist and do not hold to "Biblical Inerrancy" as understood by conservative protestantism.

Second, only God knows who are the true Christians. I make no judgment on anybody based on their beliefs or practices. Of course, if somebody says "I'm a Muslim" then obviously he or she is not a Christian. I will take them at their word.

Having said that, it is a fact that Christianity has historically held that certain beliefs and practices are acceptable while others not. We can't ingore history.

What I meant by my comment about seeking another denomination or religion was not to disparage anybody. If somebody cannot in good conscience remain in a church body or a religion then it is perfectly acceptable to leave and find one that is more consistent with one's beliefs. I am making no judgment one way or the other.

However, I am disturbed by the way some people have taken charge of certain denominations in order to foist thier views on others and make the original believers either leave or suffer if they stay. Its kind of like a colonialization policy.>

Armando:

They do object to divorce. It is why it is (supposedly) so hard to get remarried. You're actually supposed to have your previous marriaged annulled in TEC, even laymen, before you are allowed to remarry (a sacramental marriage, that is), not that everyone bothers doing it nowadays.

Even today it is much harder for priests to do this, and although most have not, any number of them have been deposed by more traditional bishops over the past few decades for going ahead and doing getting remarried without episcopal approval.

As for homosexuality, traditional Episcopalians (and all but a tiny minority of Christians through out history) find it credible to believe that St. Paul heard and understood what God coveys regarding matters of faith and moral purity.

Homosexual practice of any kind does not conform to Christian standards of moral purity, just as audultery, fornication and masturbation do not. All are acts of self-gratification that have nothing to do with the purposes of God in a person's life. They are, all of them, examples of "missing the mark". To divorce without a genuinely legitimate reason also is a case of "missing the mark".

Katherine>

Dear Poetographer,

Thanks for your post.

Forgive me for being a little confused. Your first post seemed to be implying that St. Paul's views on the subject were incorrect and that we should follow Christ, not him. In your last two posts you seem to be saying that St. Paul is really misunderstood.

Now you are saying that IF there is a distinction between Christ and St. Paul, you will follow Christ.

Perhaps you are saying the Bible is silent on the issue of today's understanding of homosexual relationships (assuming there is such a thing). I am not quite sure of your point.

As I said in my last post, I don't think that the modern re-interpretation of those passages in the Bible concerning homosexuality are very persuasive. The same goes for the assertion that the Church or Christian history has not been consistent on the subject.

I do admit that my phrasing of the comment about seeking another church was wrong. See what I have said to Erich above.

Appealing to the parable about the Good Samaritan does not really help. Why? Because we both are coming to the text with a different ideas of the Gospel, of forgiveness, and of repentance, something stressed over and over by Jesus.

Historically, the parable was meant to convey that people from another racial/religious group are still our neighbors. Do you seriously think that Jesus or his hearers understood this as a statement about accepting alternative sexual mores?

What did Jesus say to the woman caught in adultery? He said, "Go and sin no more." Do you think that was a loving, accepting statement to make?

This shows the vast difference in the modern "gospel of inclusion" versus the traditional "gospel of transformation." The former doesn't require repentance and change, the latter does. The former has no standards for fellowship (except for those beliefs that they hold dear) while the latter does have standards. A cursory reading of I Cor 11 shows that the early Church certainly had standards for the Eucharist. But then again, it was written by St. Paul. :)>

Brian -
This needs to be my last post on this particular thread, so I hope it clears things up a little. I am trying to say there are conflicts among: 1) What Paul said; 2) what some say Paul said (arguably not the same as 1); and 3) the concepts I believe Christ taught. When in doubt, I will follow what I believe Christ taught.

We're just going to disagree on the world's historical view of homosexuality, but you are correct when you say I believe the Bible is silent on today's understanding of homosexuality (if it exists).

The Good Samaritan parable is most definitely NOT about sexual mores, but it IS about overcoming religious/ doctrinal/ cultural differences. Since Samaritans and Jews were bitter enemies over the issue of where God lived, I think it has something to say about how to treat each other regarding doctrinal disputes.

I DO think "go and sin no more" was loving, but I don't classify adultery with homosexuality (a whole different discussion that we won't get into).

My experience as a Christian has been VERY transformative - but not until I was also inclusive. See my above reference to Matthew 5. Repentance and forgiveness are fundamental to my understanding of my relationship with Christ, but it is my own repentance that concerns me, not the (perceived) repentance of others, so exclusion does not fit into that understanding. I have repented and changed, and need to continue repenting and changing. I just don't honestly believe that homosexuality is something one needs to be repentant of.

Finally, regarding a point by someone else about rights of free association. That is an American concept, not necessarily a Christian one. They are not the same. As Christians we are called to do things like visit those in prison (and a lot of them aren't folks we would freely associate with), and be loving to ALL persons, not just those we like or who are like us. I wouldn't presume to tell you who should be allowed in your church any more than I would presume anyone should NOT be welcome in mine.

Peace to all.>

Naw - easy as pie. I'd go with Spong, as he clearly recognizes that grace is freely given to *every* sinner.

Paul seemed to think there are some sinners that grace can't be bothered with.

Who is more in line with Christ?>

It seems very simple to me.
ECUSA is an autonomous body. Many branches of the communion oficially believe or practice things that other branches do not. Female ordination comes easily to mind. The Majority of our decision making body voted to Confirm Robinson, (which by the way is only voting to say the election was held correctly). The Windsor report was issued, which was One Province (England) attempting to impost their will and the will of other provinces on OUR province. General Convention correctly rejected it. It is Windosr which is opposed tho the tradition, laws, and structure of the church, not any action of ECUSA. This is true no matter what you believe on homosexuality or female ordination.
An attempt by conservatives is underway to impose a new structure on the church. I wonder how they will feel when the time comes that the other primates want them to practice something they don't believe.>