TEC close to okaying gay bishops

As one of the those trads. Rod mentions that is still in the Episcopal Church, I can only answer for myself,but this likely ,the end of my time with TEC, the only question, is whether to join ACNA,or become Orthodox. I am in a healthy and substantial conservative parish in a hostile diocese and yes, it as though you are on and melting glacier and being forced into a smaller and smaller area. The liberals not only won, but a vicious and authoritarian,and plan on total destruction of us and themselves.I myself am someone who was/is basically blacklisted from the discernment process for the priest-hood.I must say I hate the liberals, in TEC, and hope there is warm place in hell for them.

My church has not only has your average Episcopalians but Karen immigrants from Burma,who arrived as Anglicans and I know they, as well as other people are not going for this.This really is the end. Frankly one of the priest at church told me, that ACNA, the new,rival province is looking to start a new Anglican church nearby and thinks that if they pull it off, it will kill my church. People fleeing the last round of craziness that left my church, have already, started another ACNA church here in the Twin Cities,with seriously damaging consequences to mine and other nearby Episcopal Churches. The one thing for now holding me back is I don't want to abandon my group of confirmands that I am helping to teach. If I venture to guess, thousands of people and more Dioceses are going to leave finally. TEC has several overseas dioceses and they generally voted no, on this and think they are going to rebel as well,pull away from TEC. TEC is in serious money trouble, the worst since the Depression, and frankly this move, insured that they alienated the last bits of health such as the Diocese of South Carolina. TEC is like a bloated,fly blown,possum carcass rotting under the hot August sun. TEC is dead, the liberal idiots, just don't realize the full implications of what they have done,TEC is about to get a real lesson in unintended and unforseen consequences. This church has no future, the legions of the new people impressed by their high-mindedness have never come and never will. In the mean while they driven away families,immigrants,Evangelicals,Anglo-Catholics and whole host of other people that would assure a good future for TEC. The arrogance is amazing to behold, they basically told Archbishop Rowan Williams the rest of Anglicanism to go f- themselves, the majority of world Anglicanism, is done with TEC.

For every member they lose, another upscale, ex-fundamentalist or married/gay ex-catholic joins.
Although obviously not well, the Episcopal church will probably never die so long as its niche market-"those equally too polite to call themselves atheists or talk about god" (Gore Vidal)-remains.
Episcopalians don't have the same turnover rate as the Unitarians or liberal Quakers (over 65%) but they're getting there, especially their clergy.

I sympathise with John E. above.

As I have noted before, I am a lapsed "Catholic" agnostic with no objection to gay relationships or gay marriage, but I nevertheless feel that many of the revisionist assaults on Christian denominations, from never-satisfied dissenters within, are ill-mannered and intolerant.

Orthodox Christianity has a certain view of the human person. This view excludes certain practices - abortion, torture, gay sex. If you disagree, then either buckle down and suck it up, or leave. Don't destabilise, demoralise or undermine the institution just because it won't trash its own anthropological foundations to suit your life choices. No-one is forced to stay in religious organisations.

I don't like squash, modern poetry, or ballet. Therefore I have never joined a squash club, or a modern poetry reading circle, or learned ballet. It's a simple solution, and it works. I don't have to do things I dislike, and people who do like those things get to do them in peace without me constantly bitching about how squash is dumb, or modern poetry is boring and uninsightful, or ballet is absurd.

I must say I hate the liberals, in TEC, and hope there is warm place in hell for them.

I will assume that you don't really mean this, Anglican, because if you do you've got some problems with the core teachings of Christianity which dwarf any difficulties you may have with the specifics of your denomination.

That said, and without necessarily buying into Mr. Dreher's characterization of the TEC as "... not a church that has any interest in adhering to Scripture or Christian tradition on sexual morality" (the correct formulation would be, "not a church that has any interest in adhering to Mr. Dreher's ideas about Scripture...etc."), still, one must agree that a divorce is now in order in this community.

Watching the trads struggle to remain in this church is like observing a battered wife, wondering when she will finally have had enough, and get out of this broken marriage.

Charles Foster Kane: It's not an issue of Jews being "unfaithful to Christian truth", since they don't claim to be Christian to begin with. Orthodox Jews, in any case, claim to be faithful to what we call the Old Testament (and they call the Tanakh). The other branches of modern Judaism adhere with varying degrees of strictness to the Tanakh. Thus, one could by analogy compare Orthodox Judaism to Traditional Anglicanism, or Catholicism, or Eastern Orthodoxy, and Conservative and Reform Judaism to Protestantism, with Reform Judaism being much like the ECUSA--so liberal that other Jews wonder if they've left the fold altogether.

A church such as the Unitarian-Universalist Church doesn't "bill itself" as Christian (though it comes out of a form of liberal 18th-Century Christianity), so there's no problem. Judaism doesn't bill itself as Christianity, so also, no problem. Now if you want say that Jews ought to accept the New Testament and become Christians, well, that's a different argument (and much more conroversial one), but not the one at hand here.

Some traditional, orthodox Episcopalians may feel they have no choice but to remain in TEC because they can’t bring themselves to join the Roman Catholic or the Orthodox communion, effectively the only other denominations possessing apostolic succession and, hence, valid sacraments, etc.

Hermann Sasse’s essay “Apostolic Succession” gives the idea a searching historical analysis. It may be found in We Confess the Church (vol. 3 of a set of three paperbacks) or in the We Confess Anthology (which reprints the three books under one cover). You will find there that you may have both orthodox teaching and morals, and real sacraments, apart from the supposed sine qua non of “apostolic succession” mediated through the episcopacy. But I would say that, conversely, those churches that make a shibboleth of “apostolic succession,” understood as inhering in an unbroken chain of episcopal consecrations, all suffer departures from apostolic orthodoxy. Why not give the essay a reading? You may find you have more choices than you thought.

"TEC is not a church that has any interest in adhering to Scripture or Christian tradition on sexual morality."

That's right. We're having Greek bacchanalia in our services now. Clothing is verboten, sex with multiple partners on the altar required, and we had to switch to box wine because we get so drunk the expense of good wine was killing the parish. Luckily our carpet is red so you can't see the wine stains. Our "Peace be with you" requires a more lurid and perverse mixing of body parts than a hug or a handshake. Marriage? waste of time! Sexual modesty and restraint? No way! You should join us this sunday, the priest is bussing in a bunch of Las Vegas whores and gay porn stars!

Honestly, Rod. Really?

The whole sum and substance of Scripture and Christian tradition on sexual morality is contained in the concept that homosexuality is sin?

You're such an imperfect Christian. And yet so sure of your righteousness.

Mexico obviously doesn't follow the U.S. Constitution. And the U.S. doesn't necessarily have a problem with that, and can do nothing about it. If Kansas, on the other hand, started to do unconstitutional things, would that not be a problem?

Alan B., thanks for the response. I get your analogy, and yes, it would be a problem if Kansas started doing unconstitutional things. But you're stating merely the "procedural" objection, i.e. that Kansas is a constituent part of the U.S. and therefore must be bound by its fundamental law. What about the substantive objection, i.e. that the U.S. Constitution embodies principles of good governance applicable anywhere? On that view, yes, it is a problem if a foreign country violates those principles, for instance by denying its citizens freedom of speech or due process of law. Besides being what many Americans believe, this I think is a closer analogy to conservative Christian's view of Scripture: They see it not merely as (procedurally) the governing document of self-described Christian communities, but as expressing (substantively) principles of transcendent importance that all of humankind should be following.

So how is it that they get all warm and fuzzy describing communities that reject Christianity and deny the transcedent importance of Christ? Look, if I'm a strong advocate of America's constitutional principles on substantive grounds, I might grant that other countries have a right not to follow them and/or that there's not much we can do about this. But I could never hold up those countries as good examples for us. And yet conservative Christians, even while expressing a very high view of the central importance of "Christian truth," nonetheless hold up groups of non-Christians as good examples of what they claim we should all be striving for. I mean, huh?? How is that possible?

Gives a whole new meaning to the Bishops Wife.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggOgz3I6x3c&feature=related

So how is it that they get all warm and fuzzy describing communities that reject Christianity and deny the transcedent importance of Christ? .... conservative Christians, even while expressing a very high view of the central importance of "Christian truth," nonetheless hold up groups of non-Christians as good examples of what they claim we should all be striving for. I mean, huh?? How is that possible?

A person who says No to Christ is at least honest. And honesty -- love for the truth -- is a precondition to any openness to God. But a person who puts on the name of Christ while making a mockery of His teachings does not love or live in the truth.

We're not talking here about honest, painful disagreements about Christ's teachings -- ecclesiology, sacraments, etc. What we have with the leftwing TEC crowd is insincerity. The looseness of "liberal Christianity" matters of sexual morality is theologically incoherent. It's simply an accommodation to purely secular libertinism, to which the language of Christianity is then twisted to fit.

Be hot or be cold. But God will vomit the lukewarm out of His mouth.

Today's conservative Episcopalians are mostly people who accepted divorce and women's ordination, among a host of other problematic developments. That they now see blessing homosexually active clergy as a bridge too far may not be consistent, but it doesn't mean they are wrong.

Well, of course not. But by their previous behavior they have deprived themselves of the argument that they are now drawing the line here because the Bible tells them so. They're going to have to think of something else, and this I haven't heard out of them yet.

The argument that they are now drawing the line here because the Bible tells them so is irrational and obnoxious.

Beliefnet is being extremely frustrating today. I just saw that a whole bunch of people's comments on various threads were held up. I freed them. Don't hyperventilate (Alan!) if you don't see your post on the site; nobody is holding them on purpose. I just had my second long comment of the day completely wiped out. I don't want to start over, so I'll make this brief.

K Street, I know you get a rise out of taking a whack at me at every opportunity, but your remark about the "quietism" of Eastern Christianity is not only ignorant, but completely untrue. Then again, you weren't really making a remark about Eastern Christianity at all.

Fr. J., I am sorry to add to your discomfort, but I do believe the analogy holds in your case whereas it would not have in the case of my remaining RC. For one thing, it seems plain to me as an outsider that the small-o orthodox Christians in TEC have been thoroughly routed, and will not be able to retake their own church. The liberals have decisively won. I am certainly open to correction, but it seems to me that continuing to fight for any kind of Biblical or traditional orthodoxy within TEC (as distinct from the Anglican Communion) amounts to the triumph of hope over experience. On the Catholic point, the difference is that a Roman Catholic has a prior commitment to the exclusive magisterial authority of the Church of Rome. As long as one believes that, however awful the local conditions are, one is bound to remain Catholic. When I lost the ability to believe that -- a long story, not worth going into again here -- there was nothing to hold me to Rome. I am not aware that TEC makes the strong claims that Rome does about church authority. Absent that, it seems not only fair but honest to inquire at what point an orthodox Anglican in TEC gives up on a hopeless situation, and decamps for one of the breakaway Anglican churches, Rome, Orthodoxy or some other safer home.

If you want to propose congregationalism (i.e., the idea that as long as everything is fine in one's home congregation, the rest of TEC can do as it likes, and we'll just hunker down and carry on) as a response, I can respect that, but I do believe it is only a temporary and very fragile compromise.

Observer, as to your comment, the overwhelming majority of Christians in the world today consider homosexuality to be sinful. The overwhelming majority of Christians who have ever lived consider homosexuality to be sinful. And not just because it says so in the Bible. Those who profess Christianity and who claim that hsexuality is morally neutral or positive are only a tiny sliver of the Christian population. That doesn't make them wrong, strictly speaking, but it does make them extreme outliers advancing a radical claim that has no rootedness in Scripture, in Christian theology and anthropology, or in the lived experience of 2,000 years of Christianity. It may come as a shock to you, but one really can't make this stuff up as one goes along.

Those who profess Christianity and who claim that hsexuality is morally neutral or positive are only a tiny sliver of the Christian population. That doesn't make them wrong, strictly speaking, but it does make them extreme outliers advancing a radical claim that has no rootedness in Scripture, in Christian theology and anthropology, or in the lived experience of 2,000 years of Christianity. It may come as a shock to you, but one really can't make this stuff up as one goes along.

I would argue of course to the contrary as to Scripture, Christian theology and anthropology. Also truth, as Catholics at least never tire of pointing out, is not determined by vote, so the idea that only a "tiny sliver" of a given population holds View X (as Christians were a "tiny sliver" of opinion in the Empire) does not make them automatically wrong. As you recognize, of course.

The idea that just because we've been doing something - human slavery, also blessed in Scripture and tradition - for a very long time, it is therefore right, has little to recommend it, and furthermore forecloses the possibility of growth. Like. Slavery was OK with St. Paul. It isn't OK with us because we've had another look at the deeper teachings of Jesus about human freedom and dignity.

But we're not really addressing the status of homosexuality in this post, we're really addressing the position of various groups of Episcopalians. I was merely seeking to point out a certain inconsistency in the position of the traditionalists.

Seen many times in this thread (a paraphrase): Christians can't endorse homosexuality or homosexual relationships.

Pray tell, where precisely did Jesus Christ address this issue? I'm not talking about Paul nor am I talking about Leviticus, but rather the Gospels. What did Jesus Christ have to say about homosexuality?

Perhaps you ought to call yourself "Paulists" instead of "Christians". (And please, no arguments stating "If it's in the Bible it must be true"; it's well established that the NT canon wasn't settled until more than three hundred years after the Crucifixion. Moreover, very early Christian writers like Clement of Rome and Ignatius do not refer to Paul as Scripture—that was reserved to the OT—but merely as "wise counsel", i.e. not divinely inspired)

***

Rod stated:

Sally Johnson doesn't appear to believe TEC is theologically correct to give full approval to gay bishops, but is giving up because she believes (no doubt correctly) that her side has lost this war. What a remarkable thing to say that it's more important to be on the side of Episcopalians than on the side of God.

It's worth re-reading the quote about her in full:

Sally Johnson, a lay delegate from Minnesota, who had supported the moratorium [on ordaining gay bishops] three years ago, proclaimed that she had decided now to support D025, the measure to overturn the moratorium, because it is a more accurate reflection of where the Episcopal Church stands.

"I stand before you now asking us to give D025 to the church and the communion as a gift, reflecting our messiness in our church but an authentic, truthful statement about who we are as the Episcopal Church," she said.

Where do you get the anything to support your contention that she thinks that the Episcopal Church is theologically incorrect? She makes no mention about why she has changed her mind or indeed why she voted as she did three years ago. Perhaps she voted for the "moratorium" then in an effort to preserve the Church, but now sees that as a lost cause so she has decided to vote her conscience. Or maybe she changed her mind on what is theologically correct.

You're assuming an awful lot here (unless you have further quotes from her that better illustrate your position that I didn't see in the article).

***

The bottom line here is that I see an awful lot of non-Anglican busybodies saying that the Anglican Church isn't Christian because they don't conform to their own personal beliefs. (I'll note here that I'm entirely agnostic on what the Anglican Church does; I'm not an Anglican and have no interest in becoming one; let them do whatever they feel their faith demands on this issue).

It's like Catholics saying that Protestants aren't Christian because they don't accept papal supremacy or Protestants saying members of the LDS Church aren't Christian because they believe in additional Scriptures. Maybe true, maybe not. Who knows? The point is that no-one has a monopoly on the word "Christian" and it's frankly silly to get into arguments that basically go "Nyah! nyah! I'm a Christian and you're not!"

In any case, that's my view from outside this little interdenominational brouhaha: it looks incredibly petty.

Personally, I'm loving the whole business of being on either the Episcopal Church's side or God's side. Great rhetorical device - the generosity and charity of this statement is marvelous!

I guess it is just impossible fomr some to believe (and I'm talking to you, John E) that people are acting from conviction and good faith, NOT from decadence and softness.

Just some general thoughts from a disengaged and liberal retired Episcopal clergyman. The amount of sexual adventurism seems to me to be constant regardless of a churches stated conformity to orthodox sexual morality. The Episcopal church takes very seriously the abuse of children, teens, and other predatory sexual behavior, as do most but not all religious organisations. There are still some that are in denial, or don't want to rock the boat by confronting abusive religious leaders.

The opinions of young Americans is following a trend such that ALL churches as likely to 'lighten up' on this issue as the years go by. This demographic change is inexorable in my view.

That said, my church has handled this issue so badly, and so brutally to conservatives that I am and remain in shock.

Geoff G., respectfully, the "But Jesus never said...X" argument ends up being far too limiting of Christian teaching.

Here are some of the things Jesus never specifically condemned--and PLEASE NOTE I'm not implying any sort of comparison between homosexual acts and these things, just making the broader point that these are things Jesus didn't specifically condemn:

--ritual prostitution (a widespread practice in the Roman world)
--pedophilia
--rape
--sacrificing of one's child to a pagan god (another all-too-common practice)
--infanticide by exposure
--child abuse generally
--concubinage (another ancient world common practice)
--polygamy

and on and on.

Now, you can extrapolate from things Jesus did say (about marriage, for example) that He wouldn't permit polygamy or ritual prostitution or rape (again, for example), but the fact remains that He never specifically condemned such things. I think reasonable people would conclude that He didn't condemn some of these things specifically because He didn't have to--the Jewish people to whom He was speaking already had the foundations of the moral law as found in the Ten Commandments and the various moral teachings of the Old Testament.

The question then becomes--did Jesus not specifically condemn homosexual acts because His people already had an understanding that these acts were gravely morally wrong, or did He omit any mention of homosexual acts because He wanted His people to eventually accept and embrace these acts as good and life-affirming? Here we have two problems for those who favor the latter interpretation: one, that the Jewish people of Jesus' day would most certainly have understood unequivocally that homosexual acts were gravely morally evil, and two, that from the dawn of Christianity up until the very recent past no Christian authority has ever tried to claim that homosexual acts are morally neutral or even morally good--the weight of Christian tradition is on the interpretation that homosexual acts are gravely morally wrong.

The Episcopal church, then, in declaring otherwise is embarking on a serious rupture with traditional Christian moral teaching. The example some give of the Church only gradually condemning slavery (or torture, to use a more contemporary issue) is flawed by this fact: the Church *has* sometimes grown to an understanding that something which was tolerated or permitted (usually by secular authorities whom the Church has not in all centuries had the power to oppose) is actually against Christ's Will. Slavery, torture, and the death penalty are examples of these sorts of things. But in terms of sexual morality, the Church has never declared that something which was always taught was gravely morally wrong is not, in fact, wrong at all. Fornication, adultery, pornography use, and the like are still sins--that is, they are still understood by serious Christians, by the Catholic Church, and by those in communion with her as being acts which by their nature tend to separate the person committing them from a relationship with God.

Modern iterations of Christianity keep trying to say that sexual sins don't matter, which is not a really good way of considering the issue. TEC is going further by saying that there really isn't any such thing as sexual sin at all--this is the church which blesses cohabitation and other marriage alternatives, after all--and to take such a radical approach to issues of sexual morality ruptures any semblance of unity TEC has had with the whole of Christendom.

Jesus reiterated the traditional Jewish prohibition on homosexual intercourse and incorporated that prohibition into what became Christianity when He reiterated traditional Jewish moral law as such and incorporated it into what became Christianity.

Of course, Jews have largely rejected the Christian interpretation of those Jewish laws about homosexuality with only the most orthodox still clinging onto the Christian interpretation of Jewish law.

And orthodox and Christian traditionalists have long ago abandoned other Jewish laws endorsed by Jewish. From following kosher food laws to sexual purity--still followed by many Jews who have long rejected the Christian interpretation of Jewish laws against homosexuality--Christians ignore these Scriptural laws all the time.

Of course, the ACNA is in communion with African churches where priests and bishops have been polygamists without consequence.

....The point is that no-one has a monopoly on the word "Christian"

If words have any meaning, then “Christian” does, too. While words are elastic they are not meaningless. Would you refer to an NFL game played with a tennis ball “football”? Perhaps. What if they added tennis racquets? What if they did not allow blocking, passing, or first downs? At some point we wouldn’t be talking about football. This is the situation TEC is in with regards to the use of the word ‘christianity”.

The unbroken teaching of Christianity is that homosexuality is sinful. This latest novelty cooked up TEC is only the latest swipe in an ongoing project of destruction of a once beautiful expression of faith.
Their painting mustaches on the Mona Lisa.

How modern.

Those in search of evidence that CBA's theological intepretation of the Scripture's treatment of Jewish law as it relates to Christianity is profoundly flawed and theologically illiterate are advised to refer to his latest, condescending post.

a form of Christianity that permits them to eat shellfish or whatever.

It's interesting that you bring up shellfish, Geoff, because (and I mean this very respectfully) I'm truly amazed at how often comments here reflect such a profound misunderstanding of how Christians interpret scripture.

With the possible exception of one of the bizarre sects that crop up only in the U.S.A., there has never been any Christian body that prohibits shellfish or abides by Old Testament dietary restrictions. This is partly because those restrictions are expressly voided in the New Testament (Acts of the Apostles). But more fundamentally it's because Jesus Christ is the center of history. While all scripture is inspired by God, the Old Testament is God's preparation of His people for the coming of Christ is the fullness of time. The Old Testament therefore must be interpreted only in light of the New.

With regard to sexuality, Christians have from the beginning held consistently that non-marital sexual activity is sinful. The polygamy, concubinage, and other extra-marital sex practiced by the Old Testament patriarchs and King David were a concession to human weakness and no longer permitted to anyone now that Christ has redeemed us.

This obviously isn't a popular position in contemporary culture, but it's an unavoidable one given both the words of Christ that are expressly recorded in the Gospels AND the doctrine firmly taught by the Apostles and by the Church since the first century.

Those in search of an example of theological literacy against which to contrast the theological illiteracy of a certain sentimental segment of the Western bourgeoisie are advised to refer to Simon's post above.

Simon, from where I observe monogamous marriage remains the societal ideal in contemporary American culture.

The progressives in the TEC are applying Enlightenment reason to modern ideas regarding sexual preference to determine that tradition and scriptural prohibitions on homosexuality are not sustainable theologically, in a process similar to that undergone a few decades ago regarding the ordination of women. The conclusion: that same-sex romantic attraction and love is the same in nature and spiritual purpose as opposite sex romantic attraction and love, and that the physical expression of it is not inherently immoral, but subject to comparable moral evaluation as heterosexuality.

The TEC isn't like most other Christian Churches - it relies on a three-fold foundation of Scripture, Tradition and Reason for its determination of theological issues. The process is painful, thoughtful, occasionally ugly, and by religious institution standards, dynamic in a way not seen since Constantine.

This process - and the idea that Reason can occasionally be the strongest foundation, overruling hte other two - must seem utterly foreign both to those in autocratic denominations and to those in fundamentalist denominations.

The presbyterian church seems headed for this same direction. They aren't there, yet, but the votes for it among the presbyteries scattered across the country are uncomfortably close. When it finally goes that way, watch for all honk to break loose.

But in terms of sexual morality, the Church has never declared that something which was always taught was gravely morally wrong is not, in fact, wrong at all. Fornication, adultery, pornography use, and the like are still sins--that is, they are still understood by serious Christians, by the Catholic Church, and by those in communion with her as being acts which by their nature tend to separate the person committing them from a relationship with God.

Except for divorce and remarriage.

No, wait, that's unfair. This statement is still probably true of the Catholic Church, at least in theory. (Please see everyone's experience with annulment, however.)

Still, the Catholic Church is not all of Christianity, however much it may think it is. My point about the traditionalist Episcopalians was merely that they are just a bit inconsistent in their alleged fidelity to "Scriptural" teachings on sexual morality.

[T]he overwhelming majority of Christians in the world today consider homosexuality to be sinful. The overwhelming majority of Christians who have ever lived consider homosexuality to be sinful. And not just because it says so in the Bible. Those who profess Christianity and who claim that homosexuality is morally neutral or positive are only a tiny sliver of the Christian population. That doesn't make them wrong, strictly speaking, but it does make them extreme outliers advancing a radical claim that has no rootedness in Scripture, in Christian theology and anthropology, or in the lived experience of 2,000 years of Christianity. It may come as a shock to you, but one really can't make this stuff up as one goes along.

As one part of that tiny sliver, I will speak up to dispute one piece of that, i.e., the "lived experience" part.

If the subject were witchcraft, I think it is probably true that a majority of Christians who have ever lived, and perhaps even a majority of those living today, believe witchcraft to be a sin, and worth being concerned about. The reason we don't go around looking for witches now is lived experience -- we understand that allegations of witchcraft are generally groundless and that witch hunts are very bad things.

Similarly, at the end of the 20th century, as a result of our lived experience, we now understand that homosexuality is not a libertine flaunting of tradition on the part of people who are no different than anyone else -- to the contrary, gays and lesbians understand themselves from a very young age to be intrinsically different from heterosexuals. We also understand, from lived experience, that persecution of gays and lesbians has exacted a truly horrific toll. It's true you can't make up this stuff as you go along, but you can't ignore a mountain of testimony because you don't like hearing it.

Maybe we have reached the point of schism between Christians who hold to traditional views about homosexuality and Christians who believe as I do, and if so, that's a sad thing. I understand that many who hold the traditional view are incredulous that anyone could believe otherwise and still consider themselves Christian. To those people, I would say: the reason I believe as I do is that I would be afraid to meet my Judge if I held otherwise.

Geoff G.,

One can only marvel at how someone like yourself who purports to have more theological insight into Christianity than Saint Paul can nonetheless fail to understand Simon's post or the elementary distinction between Jewish moral law and Jewish dietary restriction, to say nothing of the bearing of New Testament scripture on both.

CBA, I've never said that I know more about Christianity than St. Paul. After all, he invented it.

I would say that it takes a certain amount of chutzpah to appropriate another religion's sacred text, throw out the bits you don't care for, interpret the rest to support your own personal beliefs, use that interpretation to bash the original religion (which most certainly happened and continues right down to this day; see typology) and then attack others for pointing out what you're doing.

Jan Hus

Of course such a group wouldn’t have been the Christian Church. It would have been something else.

Well, it wouldn't have been the Christian church we know. That Jewish splinter sect that existed prior to Paul certainly considered themselves Christian though.

Therein lies your problem. You think it matters what you think being a Christian means. It doesn’t.

Actually I am perfectly willing to concede this point. What you don't understand is that your opinion doesn't matter either.

So let the Anglicans sort this out on their own in their own way.

By the way, I'm married, straight, and rather elderly by the standards of this place. I don't have a personal stake in gay rights.

At this point I'm just as happy we Orthodox have a celibate episcopate, and I would recommend this to the Anglicans if it weren't entirely too late. This trouble all started back when Thomas Cramner was hauling his secret wife around England in a closet-trunk.
However when people try to claim that the whole controversy about homosexuality is about core Christian doctrine, I really do have to roll my eyes. Core Christian doctrine involves matters like Original Sin, the Incarnation, the Trinity and the Resurrection. This doesn't even come close. It's about on par with the question of whether animals have souls, where orthodox Christianity has one answer, but plenty of popular dissent exists-- and no one sees cause to read those dissenters out of the Church. An interesting qusetion no doubt, and one with broader theological consequences, but not something that the Church will live or die on.

Geoff G.,

The sort of chutzpah you describe, the sort of of wholesale expropriation of and travesty of a prior religious tradition is not a chutzpah in which either Jesus Christ or Saint Paul were ever engaged.

But it is just precisely the sort of chutzpah in which Vicky Gene Robinson and like-minded and similarly sentimental members of a certain small segment of the Western bourgeoisie are presently engaged in their effort to cast a vaguely "Christian" veneer on their ill-chosen self-sacrament of homosexual intercourse.

As for the Anglicans "working this out in their own way" -- they will, and by slamming the door as hard as they can on the already over-burdened backsides of Vicky Gene Robinson, his confreres, and his comrades.

For more details -- and for what seems to be (at least for you) a much-needed primer in Christian theologically literacy where sexual ethics are concerned-- please see Bishop N. T. Wright in this evening's Times of London.

His op-ed is entitled "The Americans Know This Will End in Schism."

It provides a more literate sense than you seem to possess of which side in the contretemps under discussion is more in sync with the teachings of Jesus Christ and with the canons of an Anglican Communion that is based on Jesus Christ's teachings and not on Vicky Gene's -- however much the latter might be preferable to you and to a few other errant sentimentalists among the present-day Western bourgeoisie.

The Nigerian bishop the "conservatives" chose to follow supports imprisoning gay people not just for having sex, but even for speaking publicly. The "conservatives" chose this man specifically because his views on gay people was closer to their own. Given the thug they have chosen as their leader, it's hard to give the "conservatives" credit for being more Christ-like than the mainline church they are leaving.

This is the slippery slope we will fall back down if we lose the fight for gay civil rights and gay marriage. This is the world the conservatives are voting with their feet to support. This is a world we must fight hard to avoid.

Jan Hus: "You need to read some history . . . . I care more about the English language and being truthful."

Glad to see you care, even if expressed smugly (a bad habit of mine on occasion, so I sympathize). Now how about converting that caring to conduct? Let's start with this:

"What’s unique is TEC’s abandonment of Scripture and Tradition in favor of a peculiarly modernist form of instrumental reason tied to a pallid bourgeoisie ethic of a few northern hemispheric elites."

On the matter of history (and philosophy) the reason being applied by the TEC is not instrumental reason of either variety, but the direct evolutionary descendant of the very Lockean natural rights philosophy that guided the forefathers of the United States in crafting a government of the people, by the people and for the people and was instrumental in the development of the Bill of Rights. Peculiarly modern? No. Modern yes, but a logical extension of 2-3 century old principles, not a peculiarity. Indeed, your arrogant dismissiveness is essentially unAmerican, so I am guessing that you are from another country, because no True American (TM) would describe the enlightened principles underlying our national beliefs in the nature of man and government thusly. Pallid?! OMG! WTF? One might guess, geographically, that you are a southern hemispherian, judging from your prejudical and resentful remarks.

On the matter of English language, "bourgeoisie" and "elites" are actually a bit contradictory in concept, old bean. I had heard that the middle classes were shrinking, but don't believe it myself, and certainly not to the extent that those of us in Western Democracies constitute a few elite. Might want to bone up on your marxism and class theory. As well as reviewing the meaning of the word "few".

If I thought you were the fasmous Jan Hus, I might indeed understand your difficulty with modern concepts that arose after you were burnt at the stake, although I might marvel more at your return to the corporal world to engage in public discourse or trivial banter. As Gandalf said to Saruman, you missed your calling in life.

Finally, on that pesky little matter of truth, one might gently remind you that hyperbole is the enemy of truth and a more insidious enemy than outright falsehood, for it is more seductive. To that end, the phrase "on this issue" might have been appropriately placed after the word "abandonment" in the above sentence to indicate the truth of the matter, which is that it is only on a few issues more than other churches where the TEC has allowed reason to overrule scripture and tradition, rather than on the entirety of its doctrine and practices.

"The Chinaman is not the issue, Dude."

Fence-sitting is an option no more.

The "conservatives" have a choice. One side wants gay people to live in healthy, monogamous relationships devoted to church and family. The other side seeks out leadership that wants to throw gay people in prison.

Next to a thug like Akinola, the flawed Gene Robinson seems saintly. Fence sitting is not an option. The thug Akinola is Exhibit A of the world the conservatives seek to force gays to live in. Fence sitting is not an option.

Come on folks. If you believe that the conservatives are right to cleave to Akinola, let's hear your defense of throwing gay people in prison simply for demonstrating in public! A little ashamed? You should be.

Akinola isn't much of a future, either.

CBA,

The Episcopal Church has never nor will ever defend Mr. Lombard's proclivities, and they have done their best to separate themselves from him entirely. To suggest otherwise is simply scurrilous.

There are quite a number of faithful Christians who believe that some homosexual relationships may be legitimate. I think that natural law is the best framework for moral reasoning, but I also think our understanding of natural law can evolve as our scientific knowledge improves, and we may not always think that natural law reasoning leads us to the same conclusions as Aquinas. The thirteenth century theologicans were simply not aware of what we now know about innate homosexual tendencies, and it is far from clear that the type of sexual dalliances condemned at Sodom and Corinth are the same kind of thing as long term committed gay relationships today. You don't have to agree with me on this but I think it would make sense to acknowledge that there is a case for both sides.

It may surprise you to learn that there are 80 million faithful and orthodox members of the Anglican Communion besides Bishop Akinola.

In any case, you ought to apply your coruscating wit and rhetorical flair to Frank Lombard's legal defense.

You are probably right to compare Akinola and Lombard. One key difference is that conservatives chose Akinola as their leader specifically because of his vile positions, while no one on the left supports Lombard's alleged crimes. (And as a public defender, please forgive the "alleged." I hope the allegations are thoroughly and fairly investigated and, if necessary, prosecuted.)

In any case, you ought to apply your coruscating wit and rhetorical flair to Frank Lombard's legal defense.

This should have been quoted italicized in my post above. It is a quote, not my statement.

public defender,

Law schools must have lowered their standards on the verbal component of the LSAT, since you seem unable to comprehend my post in response to Jillian. I implied no similarity between Akinola and Lombard -- rather Jillian herself did. I merely pointed out that there are something like 79,999,999 Anglicans in the world in addition to Akinola, such that it is more the case that Akinola "sides with" the 79,999,999 than that the 79,999,999 "side with" Akinola. In any case, perhaps you and Jillian have hit upon a strategy for Mr. Lombard's legal defense -- that at least he's not as "bad" as one of those African "monkeys" that John Shelby Spong and other "progressives" in the The Episcopal Church have warned us about.

Nor was it any coincidence at all that the same Episcopal Church General Convention that just opened the sluice gates to more non-celibate homosexuals bishops and priest -- not to mention transgendered ones -- also voted down a resolution affirming Jesus Christ as the exclusive savior of humankind.

Actually the resolution was killed in committee, but regardless, I had not heard about this before so I googled it. It's really interesting, more so (to me) than the gay issue, important though that is.

The defeated resolution would have read, in part:

"Resolved, That the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church declares its unchanging commitment to Jesus Christ as the Son of God, the only name by which any person may be saved (Article XVIII [Note--Articles of Religion—back of BCP]); and be it further

"Resolved, That we acknowledge the solemn responsibility placed upon us to share Christ with all persons when we hear His words, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No-one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6); and be it further …

Resolved, That we renew our dedication to be faithful witnesses to all persons of the saving love of God perfectly and uniquely revealed in Jesus and upheld by the full testimony of Holy Scripture......"

Among reasons given for not approving this language was "insensitivity to other faiths."

Here's the nub of the issue, people. As I've been pointing out here and on other recent threads, if you're going to claim to be following the Bible, it makes little sense to lament a Christian group's embrace of gay bishops while ignoring what should be a much bigger issue for you: the fact that many other groups -- Jewish communities, for starters -- have rejected Christ altogether. As the resolution above says, the Bible is quite clear on this: Jesus is THE Way, Truth, and Life, you are not saved outside of faith in him, and it is therefore incumbent on Christians to try actively to convert everyone in the world.

Modern Christians, conservatives and liberals alike, don’t really believe any of that. They think it’s great that some people are Jewish or hold to other faiths, particularly if that leads them to build good communities and families on the basis of good, solid values. Rod Dreher himself joined in celebrating just such a Jewish community on this blog just a couple of days ago.

So it appears that a group of conservative Episcopalians basically tried to call the church's bluff and get TEC to state plainly that it accepts the Bible’s clear teachings on this matter of absolutely central importance -- whether faith in Christ is or is not essential for every human being, and whether Jews and others should therefore be actively evangelized. One could say (and conservatives are saying) that TEC was expressing typical liberal hypocrisy in voting this down, that they’re expressing the same faithlessness to Scripture on this point that they’re expressing when they vote to accept gay bishops.

But in fact, what’s apparently happening is that liberal Christians are at last struggling toward something like intellectual consistency: If you’re not actually going to make a serious, urgent effort to convert Jews, Muslims and Buddhists (and no significant Christian group will), then don’t claim to believe that Christ or Christianity is the only path to becoming right with God. The real inconsistency is on the side of (most) conservatives, who will go on making that very claim -- as part of a general claim to be following the Bible to the letter -- yet who have no intention at all of making asses of themselves by going around telling good, God-fearing Jews and others that they are lost souls who are damned for all eternity if they don’t convert.

And this, I believe, is the logical contradiction that is going to destroy conservative Christianity in the end. It’s not just that it’s fighting rearguard actions on gay rights, creationism and the other marquee issues. It’s that it has accepted the basic tenet of modern liberalism, i.e. that the world is big and diverse and multicultural, and that a particular religious faith that arose in the ancient Near East, and that held sway for a long time in the West, is not necessarily right or essential for every other culture or person on earth. There are many paths to God, or higher Truth, or spiritual wholeness, or whatever we want to call it, and it’s just arrogant for any one culture to claim an eclusive lock on those things, regardless of what it says in some sacred book.

The liberal Christians being criticized in TEC and elsewhere are engaged in a search for a new accommodation to these realities, one that preserves Christianity in some meaningful way within a diverse world whose diversity we now, finally, understand is not a problem but part of its greatness. Conservative Christians, meanwhile (other than the hardy band that offered that resolution), are in deep denial, imagining that they can somehow maintain the exclusivist Christianity of an older, much more provincial and unipolar world even in the face of the world’s diversity, which is not going to go away.