It is this “My Way of the Highway” self-righteousness that is the single greatest problem in all of religion. Is the anglican church so fragile that it can be fractured by only one issue or one group? Are they so afraid of homosexuals that they will sacrifice everything that unifies them over that particular cause? How do the Global south bishops understand their position in regards to the rampant sexual abuses that take place within their dioceses (correcct plural?) – all their self-righteousness washes away in the face of their own realities.
O well, what’s one more schism. I guess Jesus’ “That they may all be one” is simply another figure of speech easily dismissed by people who see their perspective as the one God ought to have. Arrogant? – sure. Good theology? – no. But after all, God is on their side?- HAH!

The Anglican communion is/was a great idea as long as it serves a positive purpose. However, it was not created by God…it is a creation of mankind. And, as such if it desolves…so be it.
The Global South is hardly the paragon of traditional western Christian theology. Yes, the Bible is filled with examples of one man with many wives. However, that is not been the norm in Europe and the USA for centuries. Not only does the Global South condone this….some of the bishop also have more than one wife. This has not been the case in Europe since about the 6th century CE.
I am not make a statement for or against men with many wives. I am simply stating that for a group who is not following Christian tradition to want to disown the Episcopal church because the claim we are not following Christian tradition by moving past bigotry, prejudice, and discrimination towards our lgbt brothers and sister….seems like the pot accussing the kettle.
The Episcopal church has sent millions upon millions of dollars to the Global South over the years. Amazing!
If the Communion can stay together without the US church backtracking…great! If not I wish the rest of the Global South God’s blessings!
Peace!

This is just so sad, so anti- what Christ stood for…
“If the U.S. bishops refuse, overseas Anglican archbishops have promised unspecified “consequences” that could drive the U.S. church from the communion or lead other Anglicans out the door.”
Now, repeat that paragraph and put the onus on the excluders…
If the overseas Anglican archbishops refuse to welcome ALL of God’s children, U.S. bishops have promised unspecified “consequences” that could drive the ‘global south’ (aka the African) church from the communion or lead other Anglicans out the door.
“All too often, those who are fostering division within the Anglican Communion seek to make international Anglican meetings lines in the sand”
God’s bullies indeed!

“Are they so afraid of homosexuals that they will sacrifice everything that unifies them over that particular cause?”
In a way I agree with you—it seems silly that this issue should cause so much trouble—but think of it this way: what DOES unify them?
I think when it comes down to it, not much. Their very ideas are totally different; the way they view and interpret Scripture is obviously different; whether they formally split or not, the ECUSA and the wider Communion/American conservatives are no longer really the same church. They’ll split, or at least alter their structure, eventually, because they’re already split in reality.
God bless.

Just get the split overwith and get on with it!

It is sad that the Episcopal Church seems to be teetering on the edge of schism, whatever you believe about gay marriage and the consecration of gay bishops. I agree (for once!) with Jestrfyl’s statement regarding Christ’s wish “that they may all be one.” Why don’t these words seem to carry any weight? JohnQ is correct, the Episcopal Church, as much as I respect it (and I do), is a “creation of mankind” (or one very selfish king). Once the idea that the Church (whatever you believe that is) was founded by Christ is abandoned schism without end is inevitable. If man can create a church he can destroy it. Churches just become brands on the shelf at Wal-Mart.

Nobody is destroying the Episcopal Church though. Christ will always be the reason for any Church, if He isn’t it’s not a Church you would want to belong to, or worship in. The part of the church that wants to embrace their homosexual members have already stated why they believe this is the right and the loving thing to do. The other half reject what they believe, and therein lies the probable schism. Anything that creates hate, egoism in religion, and divides congregations can’t be from Christ. Sorry, my opinion.

You know what – nothing is ging to change from all of this lofty, erudite discourse and studied, poised articulation of well thought through and prayed for stances. So I suggest this…
Why don’t they take the title of this artice as a directive for action. In other words, play for the decision in a game of High-Stakes Poker. Now let’s see who has faith and who is just bluffing! Given the nature of the discussion, I suggest Texas Hold “em or 5 or 7 Card Stud. (OK, cheesy, tasteless puns, but I bet most of you smiled before you looked around and pretended to be horrified. Don’t lie, Santa sees you!)
If that is too Euro-centric, try baccarat, mancala or go. But DO something. We cannot afford more hot air – what with Global Warming. AND they are meeting in New Orleans, where hot air attracts hurricanes, and they haven’t even recovered form Katrina.
OK how about this, which ever side builds the most houses in New Orleans and the Gulf Coasts wins and get s to make the decision. Or maybe they can dump all their loose change in a bucket – OK, a really big chalice, and who ever guesses the closest in Euros wins. (Now say this part really quickly and quietly) All valuations of foreign coins are based on the moment the contest ends – no livestock or fowls allowed.
DO SOMETHING, ANYTHING, SOMEPLACE! Even the Prophets and Apostles knew when to stop talking and move on!

Hang in there Episcopalians! You are in the right. Let the global south get by without your wisdom and money; they may even decide they’ll take the wisdom to get the money after all.

I’ve always said Micahel Swift was not joking. The Gay Agenda has as its main goal, the destruction of the Christian community and culture. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/swift1.html

Yes, Jesus did pray for the unity of His Body, the church. But He also prophesied that there would be many would stray from the truth He taught, thus causing divisions.
All the divisions in Christendom for the past 2000 years have come because of convictions held by individuals within the church. For example, I have a very deeply held conviction that the Bible is the Word of God, inspired by Him as His message to mankind. Others within the scope of Christianity do not share that conviction. It is impossible for me having this conviction to “compromise” with someone who does not. If I did, I would no longer have a conviction which I believe God gave me.
This is what many writers seem to misunderstand about the gay issue and conservative Christians. It is not hatred or bigotry that compels me to deny ordination to someone who is a practicing homosexual. It is a deeply held conviction based on my understanding of the Word of God. It is impossible for me to compromise that conviction.
Others are free to do what they think is right based on their own convictions. Thus, divisions. Joey is right. It is not homosexuality that is dividing the Episcopalians. They are already divided because some of them believe the Bible is the Word of God and some of them do not believe that. That is the central issue that defines one’s position on all other issues. There can never be unity between one who accepts the Word of God as true and one who accepts it as partly true, or not true at all.

ST. Paul said it best. No sin is unique to any one its been done over and over.In my opinion its not the gay sex that’s at issue its the demands that the gay community make for society to bless their lust.Fornication and adultery are universal to both homo and hetero. In the instance of church leadership its even more absured to demand that its a new paradigm. Creating a God that pleases us is a fundamental thinking error we all suffer from daily. The Holy Spirt convicts us and we come back in line.If we continue to worship our own comfortable God we are in danger of hardening our hearts and falling away. I am a 45 year old male who recently spent three years in college as a returning student.I was shocked at how many Young women especially had come to the conclusion that gender roles were irrelevant.Talk about a long road.Bottom line is that I cannot create a belife system that serves to comfort me when i am willfully arrogant and self rightous.

“Creating a God that pleases us is a fundamental thinking error we all suffer from daily.”
I couldn’t agree more with this sentence of yours. Except some of us don’t create a god at all. But I really believe that, except for people whose god(s) have recently been poured into their heads by parents or others with control over them, and perhaps except for people who live in communities that keep a very close watch over the gods in those communities, people do indeed create the kind of god they want. I think, for instance, jesterfyl and Henrietta and some others, create kind and loving and you might say intelligent gods because they are those kind of people. And I think others create jealous and irrational gods because they have too much of that in them. It would be interesting to know how much/what kind of interaction there is between the personality and the god it shares a brain with.

Jestrfyl, do you feel like we’re being dissected? Just kidding. Seriously, I suppose anyone with a good imagination, and a need could create God anyway they want to look at him. My image of God comes from my teachings from parents, relatives, and sunday school. The understanding grew through confirmation classes, the Holy Spirit, observations in living, relationships, nature, and personal experiences. I didn’t create Him. God just is. Jesus Christ is his son, and I don’t have to understand every little detail of his living on earth. I don’t care if he didn’t have miracles, he still is the son of God, and the best teacher this world has ever had. I thank you poster above for the compliment you gave me above. If I’m all that you say then my life has been lived for something.

Henrietta, as you may have suspected, poster above was me. Sorry I neglected to sign my work. And I’m sure your life has been lived for much.

nnmns,
Thanks for the complement.
As for all the others who are scared beyond death of sexuality )hetero or homo) I leave you with the words and intent of the Bard himself,
“Me thinks thou dos’t protest too much”

One of the signs of the end of a age is the indulgence of homosexuality. This is not the first time it has had this type of influence in sociality, who’s to say it is not the last. There have been many empires that in their idleness of wealth have given itself to these very same practices, their time did come to an end soon after.
This split will matter much to the Episcopal Church, even though many liberals give the ill advice to the church to drop the Angelical they have very little to loose for they have very little invested in the kingdom. After all one really cannot follow Jesus and support SS affairs. Jesus did not come to change the law but to fulfill it, and church can’t be on both sides of the fence.
By the way it is biblical prophecy that these things will happen, but the bible never prophesizes any outbreak of support for homosexuality.
And I still assert that I have never seen a gay homosexual trait, I find that they are no gayer then any other person.

Are you a paid antagonist C.? You seem to bring up points to ponder that no one else even thinks of. Do you think we should continue to burn witches, people who saw prophecy, too, much like our popular Psychics of today? There is so much good and of use in our Bible, but you use it as a weapon of darkness. ‘There are none so blind as those who will not see’. This old adage is appropriate here.
You’ve insulted the Episcopal Church and its members by saying, quote,
“They have very little to lose for they have very little invested in the Kingdom”.

Do I think we should burn witches? What’s up with that? Typical bate and switch tactic I presume. “There is none so blind as those who will not see,” huh? See what?
I have only reported that the homosexual promotion is not unique and has had periods of popularity in history and the unfortunate downfalls of the societies that practiced these ways.
Also when you look at Greek history you can see it being yes a choice of being popular and then unpopular with its participants.
Also the Episcopal church consist of more than just its powerful liberal contingent, and the changes that they suffer under are new and invented by the some not all. There is no insult intended to the church as a whole, maybe to the direction of some, but that’s my point of view.
Prophecy vs “Psychics?” I don’t think I would even honor that with a response, if ya don’t know then ya don’t know.

“One of the signs of the end of a age is the indulgence of homosexuality.”
OK, ck, does this mean Frodo and Sam Gamgee wound up shacking up at the end of Middle Earth? I am not at all sure what this phrase means, but the implications are amusing. So the four horsemen of the Apocalypse are actually gay?
“After all one really cannot follow Jesus and support SS affairs. Jesus did not come to change the law but to fulfill it”
These do not necessarily follow each other. Each is a statement in need of its own support, especially the first one. And the same is true for this one, too.
“By the way it is biblical prophecy that these things will happen, but the bible never prophesizes any outbreak of support for homosexuality.”
More explanation might help.

jestrfyl, can one preach and teach the Bible believe in it and yet make fun of it?
In the age of Greek domination of the world they were on again and off again practicing homosexuality. They grew rich and fat and idle so homosexuality became a thing to do, they were near to the end of their age of power. So goes the very same for Rome. Here we are again, “nothing new under the sun.” What Frodo or the four horsemen have to do with my statement only you know. I guess humor is disarming, and distracting especially from the truth.
SS affairs are purposeful repetitive sins, as quoted from the very scriptures Jesus taught from. He did not say the woman caught in the act of sin was not sinning,(grace) He said “go and sin no more.” Jesus said I did not come to change the law but to fulfill it. I believe that the some that prophesized in His name and will be told “depart from me I never knew you.” will be homosexual ministers and those who support the movement. I do hope that explains my position. I say this because no where in the Bible is there any suggestion that it supports homosexuality, as a matter of fact, just the opposite is sited over and over, even in the design that God created man and woman.

I have been on vacation for the past week, which is why I haven’t chimed in yet. I find that, yet again, there are a number of pronouncements made without evidential support. I’ll start with WindsorsChild’s note of 14 Sep, 8:40 am:
“I have a very deeply held conviction that the Bible is the Word of God, inspired by Him as His message to mankind. Others within the scope of Christianity do not share that conviction.”
Please name any person who describes her- or himself as a member of any church who has written or spoken any published work on any subject who has stated that she or he did not believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Anyone. Give a citation and quote with context if possible, please.
“It is not homosexuality that is dividing the Episcopalians. They are already divided because some of them believe the Bible is the Word of God and some of them do not believe that.”
Please name any Episcopal cleric or authoritative layperson who has written or spoken any published work on any subject who has stated that she or he did not believe that the Bible is the Word of God. Anyone. Again, citations and quote with context, please.
DS

To continue with John’s note of 14 Sep, 5:03 pm, challenging not absence of evidence, but absence of logic:
“In my opinion its not the gay sex that’s at issue its the demands that the gay community make for society to bless their lust.”
There are gay and straight persons who seek to have civil and ecclesial marriage available to gay couples. Marriage, generally, is regarded as a lifelong commitment, characterized by love and sexual exclusivity. On what basis do you describe this as “demands … to bless their lust?”
“I was shocked at how many Young women especially had come to the conclusion that gender roles were irrelevant.”
Please explain how issues regarding gender roles relate to issues regarding acceptance of sexuality in the church or in society.
“I cannot create a belife system that serves to comfort me when i am willfully arrogant and self rightous.”
There are several persons who have posted on this thread who appear to me to possess a belief system which comforts them and who are arrogant and self-righteous (whether that belief system is self-created or not, or if the arrogance is willful, I do will not say). Please explain how possession of a comforting belief system, and arrogance and self-righteousness, are mutually exclusive.

cknuck-
“I have only reported that the homosexual promotion is not unique and has had periods of popularity in history and the unfortunate downfalls of the societies that practiced these ways.
Also when you look at Greek history you can see it being yes a choice of being popular and then unpopular with its participants.”
Yes, and the same can be said of bigotry, discrimination, and prejudice against homosexuals.
bigotry, discrimination, and prejudice against homosexuals is not unique and has had periods of popularity in history and the unfortunate downfalls of the societies that practiced these ways.
Also when you look at Greek history you can see it being yes a choice of being popular and then unpopular with its participants.
BTW, the Roman Empire fell not because of their particular belief system/morals….it fell because it grew too large for the systems of the time. The admin and the outer lying lands of the empire were unable to communicate in an effective manner. The empire was so large the admin was unable to supply food and supplies to its military in the outer areas. Any good (secular) history book will explain this better than I.
Peace!

CK,
It’s not so much I make fun OF the Bible, but that I have fun WITH it. Someymes it is a matter of emphasizing inconsistencies. Other times, there is some genuinely funny material, like the time ELijah is taunting the Priests of Baal.
Regarding homosexuality, I recall no lessons from Jesus about that topic in particular. he did talk about sinning. Basically, anything – and that means ANYthing – that beceomes an obstacle big enough to block your path toward God is a sin. Certainly, any form of sexuality can do that – not only homosexuality. Paul had a few lists of potential opportunities for sin, and sexual matters were only one (or some) of many. It is not that any one act was sinful, but if any act kept you from God. I know plenty of LGBT folks whose path to God opened only AFTER they were open with themselves, their family and their friends. Now the “light of Christ” shines as surely in their lives as in many other folks. On the other hand, I know folks whose fear of sexuality is so great (as in BIG) that they cannot be open to many people. Their fear becomes the obstacle that blocks the light and leaves them in the cold shadow. The light cannot be overcome, we simply have to step out of the protecting shadow and alow the liht to shine on the wide range of possibilities.
Yes, empires fell and homosexuality was a part of their character. However, it was nether the determining factor, nor even a significant factor. More likely there was wider corruption that involved victimizing powerless people, widows and orphans, and travelers. History teaches us that homosexuality has been around longer than historians can account. So has greed, oppression, and war. There are the waves that erode the walls of empire.

Thank you jest, for you thoughtful and civil response. I disagree that homosexuality was not the cause of the downfall of certain empires, although I do admit it was not the only cause. But it was certainly part of the Roman belief system and the Greek at the time of both of their downfall. And they both were at a place that resembles the place in history that we are at now.
To a real bible believer the so called inconsistencies you referenced to are not inconsistent at all. One just has to dig a little deeper with the help of the Holy Spirit.
However I do agree with you on the many potential opportunities for sin as Paul said, homosexuality just happens to be the one this church is splitting over and many other Christians are divided over. There is no way anyone outside of Jesus Himself can convince the activity is not sinful and unfruitful vanity. But thank you for the civility of your nature.

DS actually marriage is only defined in the Bible as a union of holy matrimony between a man and a woman. It has never in anyway shape or form honored any SS marriage and according to the Bible it is non-existent there is no form of union as such described in the Bible and that is where people who make the stand base their stand on. I’d rather be with the Word then with your word.

ck -
In my comment to John, I was challenging his remark about “blessing lust,” noting that marriage ordinarily is viewed as lifelong (or intended to be), loving, and sexually exclusive. I think that makes it pretty much the antithesis of lust or lustfulness. I made no statement one way or another regarding the genders or orientation of those who seek to enter into that relationship.
You just now stated that “marriage is only defined in the Bible as a union of holy matrimony between a man and a woman.” I don’t believe marriage is ever defined in any way in the Bible: please supply a citation from the OT or NT (or Apocrypha, for that matter), supporting your claim that it is defined as, well, anything.
Please also supply a quotation (with citation) from any theologian (or politician or political activist, for that matter) which supports your claim that “people who make the stand (in support of same-sex marriage) base their stand on (the putative existence of a) form of union … described in the Bible….”
DS

DS
Gen. 2:24, and Jesus repeats in Mt 19:5, and Mk. 10:7 Often times people make the claim well the bible only mentions it 3 times or like in likening homosexuality to sin the bible only does it 6 times. Well they can ignore it six times if they want or the fact from the very being the bible supports in Gen. 2:24 man and woman marriage and Jesus supports it so strongly He condemns divorce of any kind. I don’t know what else to say, any pastor preaching anything else is preaching what is known in the bible as false gospel.

ck -
Now we’re getting somewhere! Thank you!
That’s a very good set of references. I don’t think they show what you claim they do, but let me think about these a while.
I would like to note that Jesus doesn’t appear to endorse heterosexual marriage (he seems to assume it), and certainly doesn’t condemn gay marriage (doesn’t mention it), but he does seem strongly to condemn hardheartedness, for which God had made allowances (see Mt 19:8, Mk 10:5). That’s very consistent with Jesus who we encounter in the Gospels in general. But, like I said, let me think a little while.
Meanwhile, you just made another claim, for which I’m going to ask you for citations: “The Bible likens homosexuality to sin six times” (paraphrased). Show them to me, please.
(BTW – for any Levitical, Deuteronomic or other OT references you might cite, I’m going to challenge you with Acts 10:13, in which God voids dietary laws.)
DS

The important fact that God does void dietary laws and makes no mention of voiding any of the sexual laws voids your challenge in my opinion. Now I may be wrong but the burden of proof is on you for any and I repeat any support of homosexuality. I agree the condemnation of hard hearts but I also observe the fact that on occasions God Himself harden hearts to suit His good purpose, and though that does not negate your argument I only raise it as a point that your hard heartedness argument doesn’t derail my point on marriage. It’s just diversionary, and from the point of view I understand just another way to bend the Word to fit popular agendas. Once someone, anyone shows me biblical support of homosexuality as it supports heterosexuality then I will change my mind. I have no fear of that ever happening, I’ve read the Bible.

ck -
Dietary laws: I think you’ve gotten a little ahead of yourself. Let’s have those six references and see where we go from there. I showed you some of my cards, but the deal’s still to you.
Burden of Proof: You have made factual or doctrinal statements without evidence. The burden is on you to supply the evidence.
Hard hearts: the point seems at first glance central to the two Gospel citations, not diversionary. And savor the irony.
Someone, anyone: I did that, a couple of weeks ago. We were talking about candidates for Bishop of Chicago, and you granted the very point.

Cue the banjos – we’ve got ourselves Deuling Biblicists!
DS & ck
I am enjoying the lobbing back and forth of the citations and interpretations. One thing to keep in mind is this – the Gospels were likely (ever the equivocation) to have been written after the Fall of th Temple, and that was the framework for the Gospel editors/writers (what, another equivocation?) Jesus’ confrontations over Jewish Law. I have not been convinced that either position can make a Gospel case regarding homosexuality, specificially. However, there is grand Gospel support for loving all people, no matter what messes they have gotten themselves into, and welcoming them “home”. That same motif is common throughout the Bible – hence I believe it is of more lasting consideration. Grace trumps Law every time, Forgiveness slams compliance, and Love aces obediance.
I am appalled that denominations are splitting over the sexuality issue. Rather they should be uniting on the command to be welcoming. It is not so much that anyone is being compelled to a positon, rather than it is people are being prevented from something.

Banjos? I play the banjo! How did you know? Does ck?
ck -
I took a day or two off, trying really hard to catch up at work.
As to the Genesis reference: It’s really important to take the prehistory portion of Genesis carefully – it’s sacred teaching story, but one mustn’t reify too much. The second (and older) Creation story you mention speaks to the origins of intimacy (2:23) and of alienation from God, self, and other (ch 3ff).
Because chapter 2 sets the stage for the Fall in chapter 3 and the origin of other people in chapter 4, of course it would speak of intimacy and alienation between our primordial parents, and nothing else.
And nothing else. Therefore, Jesus’ references to it which you cite speak to intimacy and alienation between men and women and nothing else.
These stories speak volumes about the things they speak about, but say nothing about the things they don’t, such as homosexual intimacy (and a great deal else besides). So your references don’t seem to apply to the question at hand.
Speaking of which, you were going to get some other references: six citations in which the Bible likens homosexuality to sin. You’ve been patient with me so I will be with you, but this story is going to drop off the newsfeed pretty soon so time is not unlimited.
(BTW – I’m planning at some point to hit you with David and Jonathan, 1 Sam 18 ff).
DS

Reply to Re:Posted by: DeaconScott | September 17, 2007 8:33 AM
Dear Decon I will reply to each of your questions.
“In my opinion its not the gay sex that’s at issue its the demands that the gay community make for society to bless their lust.”
Please explain how issues regarding gender roles relate to issues regarding acceptance of sexuality in the church or in society.
My opinion is that the issue of acceptance has turned into an acid test for heterosexual homosexual relations. If I say I like you as a person but your lifestyle choices make me uncomfortable I become a bigot. So what happens…we get government sanctioned remedies and institutions that are eventually completely at odds with the general publics sensabilities.Example.. Anyone who has any sense and more than two nickles to rub together sends their kids to private schools in most metropolitan areas.Why?
The more concrete answer is simply statistical probabilities. Alternative lifestyles foster higher rates of mental illness, suicide, premature death, domestic violence,addiction, disease.
Please explain how possession of a comforting belief system, and arrogance and self-righteousness, are mutually exclusive.
They are not mutally exclusive they are related. It is the logical fallacy at work. We all rationalize the hell out of everything people can be rational but as a whole we are not rational beings in the holistic sense.